
:|;iss f=8(^^ 
iodk -> C 6 <J v^ 



PKKSICNTKI) iri- 



THE EARLY SENTIMENT FOR THE ANNEXATION 

OF CALIFORNIA: AN ACCOUNT OF THE 

GROWTH OF AMERICAN INTEREST 

IN CALIFORNIA FROM 1835 

TO 1846 



BY 



ROBERT GLASS CLELAND 

Professor of History in Occidental College 



A dissertation presented to the Faculty of Princeton University 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of 
Philosophy. 



(Reprinted from The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XVIII, 
Nos. 1, 2, and 3.) . 



Texas State Historical Association 
Austin, Texas 






mt% 



i3)5 



p 



THE EAELY SENTIMENT FOR THE ANNEXATION OF 
CALIFORNIA : AN ACCOUNT OF THE GROWTH 
OF AMERICAN INTEREST IN CALI- 
FORNIA, 1835-1846 

robert glass cleland 

Foreword 

For a decade prior to the Mexican War, a well-defined move- 
ment for the annexation of California was developing in the 
United States. Varioiis writers have given some attention to 
isolated incidents properly belonging to this movement, but hith- 
erto no one has traced its growth in any systematic or connected 
way. To do this is the aim of the following discussion. In it, 
after roughly outlining the various ways in which California 
was first brought to the attention of the American people, I 
have devoted considerable space to tlie efforts made by Jackson, 
T}'ler, and Polk to purchase the province from Mexico; to popu- 
lar interest throughout the United States in its acquisition; 
and to the growth of emigration from the western states. I 
have considered it worth while, also, to show the effect of cur- 
rent rumors that one or more European nations were seeking to 
secure a foothold in the province; and to add a chapter on the 
influence of slavery upon the American program. To local affairs 
in California, I have given only so much attention as seemed 
necessary for a clear understanding of their relation to the 
movement for annexation. 

Inevitably, in the treatment of a subject involving so many 
details, mistakes have arisen and faults can readily be pointed 
out. Yet I believe the account to be accurate in the main, and 
trust that it will shed some new light on a most interesting and 
important phase of westward expansion. Wherever possible I 
have gotten my material from manuscript sources, finding the 
official documents on file in the State Department; the Polk, 
Jackson, and Yan Buren correspondence in the Library of Con- 
gress; and the Larkin correspondence in the Bancroft Collection 
of the University of California especially rich in this regard. 



2 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

Frequent use has also been made of contemporary writings of 
the time, whether in book, magazine, or newspaper form. These 
have been indicated by references throughout the text, as have also 
the considerable number of secondary authorities and government 
publications upon which I have been privileged to draw. 

It would be but a poor return on my part if I made no men- 
tion of the assistance I have received in the preparation of this 
work. To the Chief Clerk of the State Department; to Mr. 
Gaillard Hunt, Chief of the Manuscripts Division of the Library 
of Congress; and to the authorities of the State University of 
California for permission to use the material of the Bancroft 
Collection, I am especially grateful. Two men, however, more 
than any others deserve my warmest thanks. These are Professor 
Herbert E. Bolton of the University of California, upon whose 
kindly interest and help I have never counted in vain; and 
Professor Robert M. McElroy, under whose direction this study 
was undertaken and whose friendship has been a constant source 
of inspiration. 



Earhj Sentiment for Annexation of California 



Chapter I 

THE BEGINNING OF INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 

AND CALIFORNIA^ AND THE FIRST NEGOTIATIONS FOR 

THE PURCHASE OF THE PROVINCE 

The fur trade. — The interest of the United States in Cal- 
ifornia began toward the close of the eighteenth century. It was 
at first due almost entirely to economic causes; and, like many 
commercial activities of the day, centered chiefly in New England. 
In 1787, shortly after the opening of the Chinese-American trade 
by William Shaw, Eobert Gray and John Kendrick, commanding 
the Lady Washington and the Columbia, sailed for the northwest 
coast of the Pacific, partly on a voyage of exploration and partly 
for the discovery of new fields for commercial enterprises.^ 

This venture though of primary interest in the history of the 
region around the Columbia, was also of great importance from 
the standpoint of California. In the first place it so aroused the 
jealousy of the Spanish government that the authorities of Mexico 
instructed those of California to seize "a ship named Columbia 
which they say belongs to General Washington of the American 
States," should it arrive at San Francisco.^ In the second place, 
it was by this voyage that Gray, having found a ready market 
at Canton^ for a few hundred sea otter skins procured from the 
Indians, opened up a profitable fur trade with China* in which 
ISTew England merchants were eager to participate. 

The arrival of one of these American fur-trading vessels at 
Monterey on October 29, 1795, marks the beginning of a com- 
mercial intercourse between New England and California, that, 
assuming various forms, continued for half a century and did 

^Robert Greenhow, History of Oregon and California (Boston. Little 
and Brown. 1844), 179-181. 

^'Pedro Fages to Josef Arguello, May 13, 1789, in Hubert Howe Ban- 
croft, Works (San Francisco. A. L. Bancroft & Co. 1882-90), XVIII, 
445. See also Greenhow, 184-185. 

"China was then the world's greatest fur market. For the relation of 
the Cantonese fur trade to the settlement of Astoria, see the letter of 
Astor to Adams, Jan. 4, 1823, in Greenhow, 439. 

^Gray valued 100 skins at $4,875, exclusive of freight. Gray and 
Ingraham to Don Juan Francisco, Aug. 3, 1792, in Greenhow, 417. 



4 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

much in an indirect way to bring about the acquisition of the latter 
province by the United States. 

In accordance with Spain's general colonial policy, the inhab- 
itants of California were forbidden to trade or have any dealings 
with foreigners. But Spain lay many leagues away, and while 
some offcials conscientiously tried to enforce the royal commands, 
they found the prevention of the illicit trade, for which both 
Americans and Californians were eager, quite impossible.^ On 
the contrary, within a few years it had grown to a very considerable 
size, especially as from 1796 to 1814 the direct trade with China 
from the North Pacific Coast lay almost wholly in American 
hands.* 

Much of this early fur trade, it is true, was carried on north 
of the California line, but the most valuable furs — those of the 
sea otter — were found in greatest abundance along the California 
coast from San Diego northward. These were sometimes ob- 
tained, as already indicated, by illicit purchase or barter from the 
Californians, of whom the mission authorities were the most de- 
pendable sources of supply. More often, however, they *were 
poached along the great stretches of unfrequented shore, or from 
the neighboring channel islands, and at times, indeed, from the 
waters of the principal harbors, to the great, but helpless indigna- 
tion of the Spanish authorities, who had neither skiff nor scow in 
which to pursue the intruders.'^ The skins thus obtained were 
carried to Canton and there exchanged for tea, lacquered ware, 
silks, and the various other commodities of the Chinese markets. 
These in turn were brought back either to the Eussian settlements 
of Alaska or to California, where they found ready disposal; or 
quite as frequently they were transported direct to Europe or the 
United States.^ 

'An American navigator, writing in 1808, said that for several years 
trading vessels of the United States had left as much as $25,000 in specie 
annually among the Californians and that the government was powerless 
to prevent this intercourse (Robert Shaler, in American Register, III, 147 
et seq. ) . Money, it should be remarked, was never plentiful among the 
Californians, and such a sum as Shaler mentioned was of material benefit 
to the financial interests of the country. 

^Greenhow, 266, quoting from London Quarterly Review, October, 1816. 

^Bancroft, XIX, 63-64. 

*For a general discussion of the Boston-California-China trade, see 
William Heath Davis, Sixty Years in California (San Francisco. A. 
J. Leary. 1889), 295-6. Davis came to California in 1816. 

In 1803 Tliomas O'Cain made a contract with the Russian Baranof to 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 5 

The whale fisheries. — In speaking of these early commercial 
enterprises, it is also necessary to mention iSTew England's interest 
in the whale industry, which, like the northwest trade, gave her 
also a first hand knowledge of California. Edmund Burke's 
tribute to the men of Nantucket and New Bedford was not mis- 
placed f and while the Revolutionary War put a temporary stop to 
their voyages, no sooner was peace declared than they were again 
'^vexing strange seas" with their fisheries. 

Shortly after 1800, these vessels, oily, ill-smelling, and often 
sadly in need of repairs, began to touch at the California ports 
for fresh supplies before beginning the long homeward voyage 
around the Horn. As the ISTorth Pacific came to furnish a 
more and more valuable hunting ground,^" these visits increased 
in frequency and soon a regular trade was established with the 
inhabitants of Monterey and San Erancisco. This was largely 
a system of barter, by which, in exchange for some four or five 
hundred dollars worth of New England manufactured goods, car- 
ried for the purpose, a returning whaler could secure sufficient 
fresh provisions for its Journey home. 

Hide and tallow trade. — A third form of commercial intercourse 
between California and the United States, more direct than the 
other two, was begun in 1822, after Mexico had achieved her 
independence.^^ In that year, owing chiefly to the representations 
of William A. Gale, a former fur trader on the northwest coast, 
the Boston firm of Bryant and Sturgis, with several business 
companions, were induced to fit out a vessel to open up a new 
line of trade with the Pacific, exchanging New England's abundant 

hunt otter in California on shares. The Russians were to supply the 
Indian hunters, and the Americans agreed to transport the skins and 
furnish the Alaskan settlements with supplies. The venture was so profit- 
able that other contracts of a similar nature were entered into, the agree- 
ments lasting vmtil 1815. The Winships were prominent in these deal- 
ings. Bancroft, XIX. 63 et seq. For an effort of the Russian Govern- 
ment to secure the official sanction of the United States to this arrange- 
ment, see Grreenhow, 275. 

'The Works of Edmund Burhe (Boston. Little and Bro^\Ti. 1839), 
II, 30. 

"From 1816 to 1822 the industry brought in more than $6,000,000 to 
Nantucket and New Bedford alone, and employed 129 vessels. Many 
urged the occupancy of Oregon to supply these American vessels with a 
port for refitting and provisioning. Annals of Congress, XL, 414 et seq. 

"Bancroft, XIX, 475. 



6 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

stock of manufactures for the hides and tallow of the California 
cattle. From this time on, the "Boston ships," as they were called, 
plied regularly up and down the California coast, disposing of 
their cargoes in all harbors from San Diego to San Francisco, and 
receiving hides and tallow in return. ^^ 

The Russian advance. — By the end of the first quarter of the 
century a loose connection had thus been established with Cal- 
ifornia through these various mediums of trade. In addition to 
this, the progress of the Eussians down the coast from their 
settlements in Alaska had begun to attract the attention of the 
United States, even in an official way. As early as 1808, a 
warning was issued against this advance by an article in the 
American Register}^ The author. Captain Eobert Shaler, having » 

been engaged in the Chinese trade some years before, had acquired 
an intimate' knowledge of the conditions in California and of 
the undeveloped possibilities of the country. After describing 
these, he went on to point out the feebleness of the government 
and the ease with which it would become a prey to the attack of any 
hostile force, dwelling especially upon the unfortified state of the 
harbors. San Francisco, whose advantages were strikingly por- 
trayed, was guarded by a battery which made only a "show of 
defence." At Monterey conditions were no better. Santa Bar- 
bara "would fall an easy conquest to the smallest ship of war." 
San Diego, with all its natural facilities, had only a "sorry" 
defence; while the harbors of Lower California were in an equally 
forlorn condition. But not only had the Spaniards failed to 
provide against the encroachments of their northern neighbors; 
they had rather, according to Shaler, made such encroachment 
easier by their very attempts at defensive measures, having taken 
"every obstacle out of the way of an invading enemy," by stocking 
the province with cattle and colonizing it with a discontented lot 

'"It should be noted that this commercial intercourse brought a num- 
ber of Americans to the province as permanent residents. Many of these 
took out naturalization papers, became large land holders, and married 
wives from prominent California families. Some were of a less desirable 
character — deserters and broken-down sailors from the whaling and 
trading ships. Bancroft, XIX-XX, Appendix, Pioneer Register and Index. 

^^American Register, III, 136-175. The article is entitled "Journal of 
a voyage between China and the northwestern coast of America made in ^ 

180^." The part dealing with California is on pages 147-161. See also \ 

Bancroft, XIX, 23-24, note. ^ 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 7 

who would welcome the security and kindly treatment of a foreign 
government.^* 

Exactly how far Shaler aimed to excite an apprehension of 
Russia's dealings in the Pacific, and how far he desired to em- 
phasize the desirability of California as an object for American 
annexation, does not appear. Probably, however, when he wrote, 
*'The conquest of this country would be absolutely nothing; it 
would fall without an effort to the most inconsiderable force," 
he had both purposes in mind, and thus made himself the pioneer 
of a not inconsiderable body of later writers who advocated 
annexation to forestall foreign interference. 

However this may be, Shaler's warning against the Eussians 
was well founded." The hunters of the Eussian- American com- 
pany had long been coming to California in search of furs; 
and in 1812 Baranof, the "Little Czar," succeeded in establishing 
a colony, to which he gave the name of Eoss, not far from 
Bodega Bay, and some thirty miles north of San Francisco. The 
object of this settlement, in its commercial aspect, was not merely 
to secure a larger interest in the California fur trade, but to 
supply the parent colony of Eussians at ISTew Archangel, or Sitka, 
with grain and other food-stuffs which could not be produced in 
the bleaker north. In addition, Baranof had the more important 
purpose of ultimately extending the Czar's control over a large 
part of Upper California by means of this colony, and especially 
of seizing the Bay of San Francisco.^^ 

Against this encroachment the Spanish olftcials protested from 
time to time at the bidding of their superiors, but probably with 
no great desire of seeing their protests effective, as the trade 
conducted by the Eussians proved of material benefit to the prov- 
ince. And even had it been otherwise, there was no force in 
California sufficient to expel them.^'^ Before many years, how- 

^*American Register, III, 160-161. 

^"California was colonized largely to protect the coast against the Rus- 
sian advance. This was as early as 1769. Bancroft, XIX, 58. 

"Letter of Rezdnof, Feb. 15, 1806, in Bancroft, XIX, 80, note. 

"For the Russian settlements in California, see Bancroft, XTX, 58-82, 
294-320; Thomas C. Lancey, Cruise of the Dale (Published in San Josg 
Pioneer, 1879 (?), and preserved in bound form in the Bancroft Collec- 
tion), 31 et seq.; Agnes C. Laut, Vikings of the Pacific (New York. 
Macmillan. 1905), 292, 338; Franklin H. Tuthill, History of California 
(San Francisco, H. H. Bancroft & Co. 1866), 118-20; Irving B. Rich- 



8 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

ever, the presence of the Eussians in California began to excite 
comment in the United States and to receive a certain amount 
of official attention. On November 11, 1818, J. B. Prevost, a 
special commissioner of the United States government to the 
Pacific Coast, wrote from "Monte Eey, New California," that the 
Spanish authority was threatened by the Eussian Czar whose 
colony had already been planted close to San Francisco, a harbor 
that, ranking among "the most convenient, extensive and safe" 
ports of the world, was nevertheless "wholly without defense and 
in the neighborhood of a feeble, diffused and disaffected popu- 
lation."^'^ 

In the following year a rumor spread that Spain had ceded to 
Eussia a strip of territory on the Pacific Coast 800 miles long, 
in return for assistance furnished in the expeditions against the 
revolutionists of Lima and Buenos Ayres.^® In the St. Louis 
Enquirer an unknown writer (perhaps Senator Benton) issued 
a warning against the "Progress of the Russian Eminre." well 
calculated to arouse the apprehension of those to whom Eussia, 
as a member of the Holy Alliance and a rival in the northwest 
trade, was already an object of sufficient distrust. 

"Looking to the east for everything," said the article, "Americans 
have failed to notice the advance of the Eussians on the Pacific 
Coast until they have succeeded in pushing their settlements as 
far south as Bodega. Their policy is merely the extension of the 
policy of Peter the Great and Catherine. Alexander is occupied 
with a scheme worthy of his vast ambition. . . . The acqui- 
sition of the gulf and peninsula of California and the Spanish 
claim to North America. . . . We learn this not from diplo- 
matic correspondence, but from American fur traders who learn 
it from the Eussian traders now protected by the Emperor in 
carrying off our furs !"^° How strong an influence these public 

man, California under Spain and Mewico (Boston and New York. Hough- 
ton, Mifflin Company. 1911), 191-201, passim. 

^'Prevost to Adams, in Documents transmitted to the House of Repre- 
sentatives, Jan. 24, 1823. American State Papers, Miscellaneous, II, 
1008-9; Annals of Congress, XL, 1209-10. 

"News brought to Canton bv a Russian frigate. Cruise of the Dale, 
31 ; reported also in Niles' Register, XVI, 237, May 29, 1819 ; XVII, 232, 
Dec. 11, 1819. 

^''Reprinted in Niles' Register, XVI. 361, July 24, 1819. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 9 

rumors and Prevost's official report exerted upon the enunciation 
of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 has not yet been accurately 
determined, but it is certain that the Russian colony at Eoss lent 
color to the fear of a much farther advance to the south; and 
served also as a strong argument for the establishment of Ameri- 
can settlements in Oregon.-^ 

Beginning of overland immigration. — Thus by degrees the far off 
Spanish province on the Pacific was brought to the attention 
of the American people not- merely through the agency of com- 
merce, but, in an equally effective way, through the danger to 
which it was exposed of passing into the hands of a powerful 
European nation. A third agency, beginning somewhat later than 
either of those just named, but operating in a similar manner, 
was the overland communication with California established by 
hunters and trappers, and the subsequent immigi-ation that nat- 
urally followed from the Western states. 

Jedediah Smith. — Two of these early journeys deserve special 
attention. In August, 1826, Jedediah S. Smith, a native of Con- 
necticut,^^ who had been for some years associated with Ashley 
in the fur trade and was at tliis time a partner in the Eocky 
Mountain Fur Company, left the company's post near the Great 
Salt Lake and after four months' travel reached San Diego with 
his band of fifteen men. Here Smith was arrested by the Cal- 
ifornia authorities, who demanded passports, in accordance with 
the Mexican law, from all strangers. His imprisonment did not 
last long, however, as he soon found a sponsor for his good 
behavior in an American sea captain by the name of Cunning- 
ham, whose ship, the Courier, chanced to be in the harbor. 

Upon his release. Smith, in spite of the commands of the 
San Diego authorities that he leave the province, seems to have 
wandered pretty much as he pleased through the Sacramento and 
San Joaquin Valleys, being prevented from crossing the Sierra 

^^Report of the Committee on the Occupation of the Columbia River, 
Jan. 25, 1821. Annals of Congress, XXXVIT, 955-6. The report men- 
tioned the military defences of Ross, the dominating position of Russia in 
Europe and Asia ; and called attention to the fact that Spain's territory 
in Xorth America lay wholly open to the access of Russia and was ex- 
posed to her "fearful weight of power." 

"Hiram Martin Chittenden, The American Fur Trade of the Far West 
(New York. Harper. 1902), I, 252. 



10 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

Nevadas by heavy snows and the loss of his animals. Late in 
May, 1827, however, leaving all but two of his companions, he 
made the diflfieult passage of the mountains and reached the 
Great Salt Lake in a destitute condition.-^ In the fall of that 
year, Smith was again in California, bringing with him a second 
company of eighteen men, to the rather indignant surprise of 
the Californians, who, however, while insisting that he leave the 
country, did pot seriously molest him. After l-emaining for 
some time, the American intruders continued their journey north- 
ward to Oregon where they were attacked by Indians. Many of 
the company were killed and all the furs lost, but Smith and 
those of his companions who escaped, made their way to Vancouver, 
where they obtained assistance from the agents of the Hudson's 
Bay Company. Two years later this pioneer of California ex- 
plorers was killed in New Mexico.-* 

The Pattie expedition. — Two years after Smith's arrest in San 
Diego, a second party of Americans, eight in number, with Syl- 
vester and James Ohio Pattie as leaders, having been found in 
Lower California without passports, were brought before the Mex- 
ican governor, Echeandia, and thrown into prison on the charge 
of being spies of old Spain. The two Patties, father and son, 
were Kentuckians who had gradually pushed farther and farther 
west until they reached New Mexico and Arizona where for 
some years they were alternately miners and trappers. In was 
on one of their trapping expeditions down the Colorado that they 
attempted to cross the desert to the Spanish settlements on the 
coast, succeeding only after the most distressing and unprintable 
hardships. 

Their reception by the Californians has been noted; nor were 
they so fortunate as Smith had been in securing a swift release. 
On the contrary, their prison experience was bitter in the extreme, 

-^Letter of Smith to General Clark published in the Missouri RepuUic, 
October 11, 1827. Communication from Cunningham announcing Smith's 
arrival at San Diego. Ibid., Oct. 25, 1827. 

-■'N'o two authorities agree in the account of Smith's adventures. The 
following, however, are probably the most reliable: Chittenden, Fur 
Trade, I, 282-7; J. M. Guinn, Captain Jedediah Smith (Historical So- 
ciety of Southern California Publications, III, 1896, 45-,53). Bancroft 
(XX, 152-160) bases his account on fragmentary records in the Cali- 
fornia archives and on a French translation there of the letter from 
Smith to General Clark cited above. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 11 

if we may judge from the younger Pattie's account. Sylvester 
Pattie died in his cell unattended by his son, who was forbidden 
to visit his father, and all the prisoners were treated with great 
severity. Eventually, however, they were released on condition 
that Pattie should vaccinate the mission Indians, who were dying 
in great numbers from an epidemic of smallpox. In fulfillment 
of this agreement Pattie journeyed as far north as San Fran- 
cisco, and later reached the Eussian settlement of Eoss. Finally, 
quitting California, he returned home by way of Mexico, where 
he vainly hoped to secure an indemnity,^^ and reached Kentucky, 
a broken and ruined man. The experiences which he underwent, 
as well as some which he probably did not undergo, were shortly 
afterwards published under the supervision of Timothy Flint of 
Cincinnati.^^ 

The bitter and oftentimes extravagant criticism of the Cali- 
fornians by the writer was well calculated to arouse a prejudice 
against them, but for the country itself he had only praise. 
"Those who traverse it," he wrote, "if they have any capability 
of perceiving and admiring the beautiful and sublime in scenery, 
must be constantly excited to wonder and praise. It is no less 
remarkable for uniting the advantage of healthfulness, a good soil, 
temperate climate and yet one of exceeding mildness, a happy 
mixture of level and elevated ground and vicinity to the sea."-^ 

Results of the Smith and Pattie expeditions. — The arrival of 
Smith and the two Patties in California marked a new chapter 
in the relations of that countr\' and the United States. Follow- 

^^The American charge d'affaires at Mexico was directed to investigate 
the arrest of the Pattie Company. He reported that all the prisoners 
had been freed except Sylvester Pattie, who died in prison; that several of 
the Americans had remained in California to go into business ; and that 
the younger Pattie was then on his way to the United States. Van 
Buren to Butler, Jan. 22, 1830; Butler to Van Buren, June 29, 1830. 
MSS., State Department. 

^'The title of the hook is in itself a comprehensive history of Pattie'a 
entire wanderings. We may be forgiven for writing it simply, James 
Ohio Pattie, Personal Narrative (Edited by Timothy Flint. Cincinnati. 
1833). A reprint appears in Reuben G. Thwaites, Early Westey-n Travels 
(Cleveland. Arthur H. Clark Company. 1905), XVIII. A plagiarized 
edition under the title "The long hunters of Kentucky," by P. Bilson, 
was published in New York in 1847. 

"Thwaites, Early Western Travels, XVIII, 306. 



12 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

ing them in a surprisingly short time"^ came other bands of 
trappers under such leaders as Young, Jackson, Wolfskill, Walker, 
and many others whose names are not known and who left no 
record of their journeys.^'' Not infrequently members of these 
early parties gave up their wanderings and became influential and 
peaceful citizens, while others were a constant menace to the 
California authorities. As for the rest, coming and going with 
the seasons, rough, earless of life, contemptuous of law, they 
wandered up and down the great inland valleys and rivers of 
California; or by frequent crossing of the Sierras prepared the 
way for the subsequent flow of immigration. 

"One sees in his pages," says Thwaites in referring to Pattie's 
narrative, 

the beginnings of the drama to be fought out in the Mexican 
war — the rich and beautiful country which excited the cupidity 
of the American pioneer; the indolence and effeminacy of the 
inhabitants which inspired the backwoodsman's contempt; and 
the vanguard of the American advance, already touching the 
Rockies and ready to push on to the Pacific. ... As a part 
of the vanguard of the American host that was to crowd the 
Mexican from the fair province of his domain, Pattie's wander- 
ings are typical and suggestive of more than mere adventure.^" 

Butler's negotiations. — In these three ways, therefore, first, by 
commercial intercourse, then through fear of the Eussian advance, 
and lastly by the opening up of the overland routes of communica- 
tion, California gradually became more than a passing name 
to the people of the United States. ^^ It was not, however, until 
1835 that this government, influenced largely by the representa- 

^^Many of the parties were organized in 1830 and 1831. Bancroft, XX, 
384-9. 

'"The reason for this is obvious — the trade was against the Mexican 
law; and in addition those engaged in it were not often given to record- 
ing their own adventures. 

'"Preface to Pattie's Narrative, 19. 

^'The first of tliese centered, as has been sliown, in New England : tlie 
second concerned the whole country; the third was of primary interest to 
the west. This division held good until the outbreak of the Mexican 
War. A fourth cause of increased interest in California during this early 
period was the agitation of the Oregon question by Benton, Linn, and a 
small, but persistent, coterie of western senators and representatives. 
Anything attracting attention to any part of the Pacific coast served in- 
directly to attract attention to California. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 13 

tions of commercial interests, made its first attempt to secure the 
harbor of San Francisco.^- 

This early negotiation for the purchase of California was closely 
interwoven with the contemporaneous negotiation for the acquisi- 
tion of Texas, forming indeed, simply a minor part of the larger 
project. Anthony Butler, a man eminently unqualified for any 
position of trust, was sent to Mexico in 1829 to carry out a scheme 
for the purchase of Texas which he himself had probably sug- 
gested,^^ succeeding Joel E. Poinsett, the American minister 
who was recalled at the request of the Mexican government. 
For six years Butler was left free to work his will, so far as he 
was able, with the Mexican officials, and to discredit both him- 
self and his government. 

From the first, Butler^s communications to the State Department 
began to hint at bribery as the best means of accomplishing his 
purpose, and soon were openly advocating it.^* Early in June, 

^-The statement is not infrequently made that the purchase of Cali- 
fornia was attempted by Clay when Secretary of State under Adams. See, 
for example, Niles' Register, LXVIII, 211; speech of Charles J. IngersoU, 
Jan. 19, 1847. Appendix to Congressional Glohe, 29 Cong., 2 sess., 128; 
Bancroft, XIII, 322-323. Wlioever may have written this volume of Ban- 
croft could scarcely have known the contents of volume XX, 399-400, of 
the same series, or of H. Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 sess., No. 42, which he 
cites as authority. The boundaries for which Poinsett was instructed to 
negotiate included no territory west of the Colorado south of the 42d 
parallel. Clay to Poinsett, March 25, 1825. H. Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 
sess., No. 42, p. 6; same to same, March 15, 1827, Ibid., 9. See also 
Memoirs of John Quincy Adams with portions of his diary from 1195 to 
1848, edited by C. F. Adams (Philadelphia. Lippincott. 1877), XI, 349. 

=^The plan, da-ted August 12, 1829, is in the Van Buren MSS., Library 
of Congress; see also Jackson to Van Buren, Aug. 12 (Ibid.), and Jack- 
son's draft of Aug. 13. According to Reeves, the official instructions, 
dated Aug. 25, were carried by Butler to Poinsett. Jesse S. Reeves, 
American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk (Baltimore. The Johns Hop- 
kins Press. 1907), 65-67. For a complete estimate of Butler and his 
career in Mexico, the reader is referred to George Lockhart Rives, the 
United States and Mexico, 1821-1848 (New York. Charles Scribner's Sons. 
1913), I, 235-261. It is perhaps well to add that the present article was 
in manuscript before Rives's exhaustive work was issued from the press. 
I have not been able, therefore, to avail myself of its contents as freely 
as I could have wished. 

^^Butler has suggested to a Mexican official that the United States is 
capable of "devising ways and means" of relieving the embarrassment of 
the treasury (Butler to Jackson, Feb. 23, 1832, Jackson MSS., Library of 
Congress) ; Jackson tliinks Butler's suggestion "judicious" and one that 
may "lead to happy results" (Jackson to Butler, April 19, Ibid.). But- 
ler believes the use of half a million dollars to put certain personages in 
the "right humor" will bring speedy conclusion of the treaty (Butler to 



14 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

1834, he asked to return to the United States on the ground 
that a personal interview with the President was highly im- 
portant, and that after it he could return to Mexico to be much 
more useful to his government.^^ Having finally secured Jackson's 
consent to his request, Butler landed in New York in the early 
part of June, 1835, with a still more extensive scheme of bribery 
in his head than any he had so far suggested, and in his pocket 
a note signed by Hernandez, a priest standing close to Santa 
Anna. 

On June 17 the returned Minister addressed a letter to the 
Secretary of State, John Forsyth, and enclosed the note from 
the Mexican priest. In this Hernandez had promised to bring 
about a cession of the desired territory provided $500,000 were 
placed at his disposal "to be judiciously applied."^^ In the ac- 
companying letter Butler assured Forsyth that the plan, if fol- 
lowed, would result not merely in the acquisition of Texas but event- 
ually in the dominion of the United States '^'^over the whole of that 
tract of territory known as New Mexico, and higher and lower 
California, an empire in itself, a paradise in climate . . . 
rich in minerals and affording a water route to the Pacific through 
the Arkansas and Colorado rivers."^'^ 

This letter met with cool response from the President.^^ Never- 
theless, after an interview with Butler he allowed him, at his earn- 

Jackson, Oct. 28, 1833, Ihid.) ; Jackson warns Butler against employing 
corrupt means (Jackson to Butler, Nov. 27. Ihid.) : Butler insists that 
"resort must be had to bribery," or "presents if the term is more appro- 
priate" (Butler to Jackson, Feb. 6, 1834. Ibid.). Later Butler writes 
McLane that "bribery and corruption" are the sole means of bringing the 
negotiation to a successful issue. (Butler to McLane, MS., State De- 
partment.) Some of these letters are mentioned by Rives. 

^^Butler to Jackson, June 6, 1834. Jackson MSS.; same to same, Oct. 
20 (Ihid.). It is interesting to note that Butler thought his negotia- 
tions for Texas had been thwarted by Stephen F. Austin whom he charged 
in a letter to McLane with being "one of the bitterest foes to our govern- 
ment and people that is to be found in Mexico." Butler to McLane, July 
13, 1834. MS., State Department. 

^''Butler to Forsyth, June 17, 1835 (MS., State Department). See also 
Rives, as cited, I, 257-258. 

''Butler to Forsyth, June 17 (quoted also in Reeves, 73-74). 

'^It is endorsed, "... Nothing will be countenanced to bring the 
government under the remotest imputation of being engaged in corruption 
or bribery ... A. J." See also Adams, Memoirs, XI, 348; and 
Rives, I, 258. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 15 

est solicitation, to return to his post in Mexico.^^ Before Butler 
left, however, the suggestion he had thrown out with regard to 
'Tiigher California" received additional impulse from another 
source. On August 1, "William A. Slacum, a purser in the United 
States Nav}^ wrote a letter to the President which, according to 
Adams, "kindled the passion of Andrew Jackson for the thirty- 
seventh line of latitude from the river Arkansas to the South 
Sea, to include the river and bay of San Francisco, and was 
the foundation of Forsyth's instruction to Butler of 6 August, 
1835."" 

These instructions mentioned by Adams give the first official 
attempt of the United States to secure from Mexico any part 
of her territory on the Pacific. The chief object, as expressed 
by Forsyth, was to obtain possession of Saa Francisco Bay 
which had been "represented to the President"*^ as "a most desir- 
able place of resort for our numerous vessels engaged in the 
whaling business in the Pacific, far superior to any to which they 
now have access."*^ ISTo definite sum which Butler was authorized 
to offer was specified in the dispatch, but Adams places it as 
$500,000.*^ It should also be noted that Forsyth expressly dis- 
claimed any desire to secure territory south of San Francisco.** 

**It may be added that Butler's presence there was desired neither by 
Mexicans nor American residents. John Baldwin to Forsyth, Vera Cruz, 
Nov. 14, 18.35. MS., State Department. Miscellaneous Letters. 

*''Adams, Memoirs, XI, 348. The name of the writer here is given as 
Slocum, but this is plainly an error. This particular letter unfortunately 
has disappeared from the files of the State Department where Adams saw 
it in 1843, but from the correspondence still on record there can be no 
doubt that the name Slacum is correct. See Forsyth to Ellis (mention- 
ing Slacum's name), April 14, 1836; Ellis to Monasterio, March 8, 1836; 
&c., &c. ; also Slacum's Report in Reports of Committees, 25 Cong., 3 
cess.. No. 101, pp. 29-45. Slacum, we learn from the documents cited, 
was made a special agent of the government to the Pacific coast to in- 
vestigate conditions there, and especially the progress of the Russians 
and of the Hudson's Bay Company. 

"Perhaps by Slacum, yet Adams's testimony regarding the powerful in- 
fluence of Slacum's letter of Aug. 1st is somewhat weakened by the fact 
that Jackson had instructed Forsyth to enlarge the scope of Butler's nego- 
tiations as early as July 25. Memoirs, XI, 361-362. 

*-H. Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 sess., No. 42, pages 18-19. 

"Adams, Memoirs, XI, 348. 

""We have no desire to interfere with the actual settlements of Mexico 
on that coast and you may agree to any provision affecting the great ob- 
ject of securing the bay of San Francisco and excluding Monterey and 



16 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

The proposition tlms entrusted to Butler was doubtless never 
submitted to the Mexican government. On December 27, Butler 
wrote the Department that it would be useless to push the nego- 
tiations at that time, though there was a chance of securing cer- 
tain commercial 2:)rivileges for American vessels at San Fran- 
cisco.*^ A few months later he received notice of his recall,*** 
and shortly afterwards left Mexico, carrying off "some of the most 
important papers of the negotiation."*^ 

Indeed, Butler's whole course was one of consistent dishonor. 
The most surprising part of it, however, was the ease with which 
he continually hoodwinked and misled his own government; and 
after reading his correspondence one is freely willing to agree with 
Adams, that "for six long years he was mystifying Jackson with 
the positive assurance that he was within a hair's breadth of the 
object and sure of success, while Jackson was all the time wriggling 
along and snapping at the bait, like a mackeral after a red rag."*^ 
It may be further added that Jackson's estimate of Butler was 
even lower than that of Adams. An endorsement on Butler's 
letter of March 7, 1834, declared him a "scamp," and when, in 
1843, Butler charged Jackson with consenting to his schemes of 
bribery, the venerable ex-President wrote another endorsement 
pronouncing him a "liar," in whom there was "neither truth, jus- 
tice, or gratitude," and whose whole accusation was "a tissue of 
falsehood and false colourings."*^ 

JacTcson's later attempts. — After Butler's summary dismissal 
nothing apparently was done toward carrying out the instructions 

the territory in its immediate neighborhood . . ." Forsyth to Butler, 
as cited. 

^^Butler to Forsyth (MS., State Department). 

*«Same to same, Jan. 15, 1836, Ihid. Butler claimed that his prospects 
for bringing the negotiation to a close were exceedingly favorable when 
cut short by his recall. 

*''Adams, Memoirs, XI, 349. The statement of Adams is corroborated 
by a letter of Asbury Dickens, Acting Secretary of State, to Butler's suc- 
cessor, and by one of Butler's o^vn letters to Jackson. Dickens to Pow- 
hatan Ellis, Aug. 19, 1836. MS., State Department; Butler to Jackson, 
July 28, 1843. Jackson MSS. 

**Adams, Memoirs, XI, 368. 

^"Endorsement by Jackson on the back of Butler's letter of July 28, 
1843. Butler in this letter also stated that Jackson had promised him 
the governorship of Texas if he procured its annexation. This Jackson 
hotly denied in his endorsement. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 17 

contained in Forsyth's despatch of August 6. But Jackson before 
his administration closed made two further tentative efforts to 
secure California. iVbout the middle of January, 1837,^° Santa 
Anna arrived in Washington, after his liberation by General 
Houston, to request the mediation of the United States between 
Texas and Mexico."^ In expectation of his request, or after it was 
definitely made, Jackson had drawn up the general terms upon 
which this government would assume the undertaking. That 
which concerns us, reads as follows : 

If Mexico will extend the line of the U. States to the Eio Grand — 
up that stream to latitude 38 north and then to the pacific includ- 
ing north calafornia we might instruct our minister to give them 
three millions and a half of dollars and deal then as it respected 
Texas as a magnanimous nation ought — to wit ( ?) — in the treaty 
with Mexico secure the Texians in all their just and legal rights 
and stipulate to admit them into the United States as one of 
the Union.^^ 

At the time that Jackson was making this proposal to Santa 
Anna he was also urging upon W. H. Wliarton, the Texan Minister 
at Washington, the necessity of including California within the 
limits of Texas in order to reconcile the commercial interests of 
the north and east to annexation by giving them a harbor on the 
Pacific. "He is very earnest and anxious on this point of claim- 
ing the Californias," wrote Wharton to Eusk in reporting Jack- 
son's suggestion, "and says we must not consent to less. This 
is in strict confidence. Glory to God in the highest !"^^ 

^"Wharton to Austin, Jan. 17, 1837. Garrison, Diplomatic Correspond- 
ence of the Republic of Texas, I, 176-177, in American Historical A*o- 
ciation Report, 1907, II. 

"Thomas Maitland Marshall, "The southern boundary of Texas 1821- 
1840," in The Quaetebly, XIV, 285. 

°^Roiigh draft in Jackson's hand on single sheet, unsigned and undated. 
Jackson MSS. of the year 1836. 

=»Wharton to Rusk, Jan. 24, 1837. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Texas, I, 193- 
194; also Marshall, as cited. The extension of the Texas boundaries to 
the Pacific along the 30th parallel had been considered by the Texan gov- 
ernment and rejected, chiefly because the territory was too large and 
thinly populated for government by a "young Republic." This decision 
had been reported to Jackson before he urged upon Wharton the neces- 
sity of including California as a means of reconciling the north. Report 
of Jackson's special agent, Henry Morfit, to the President. H. Ex. Docs., 
24 Cong., 2 sess., No. 35, pages 11-12. 



18 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 



Chapter II • 

THE GROWTH OF INTEREST DURING THE VAN BUREN AND TYLER 
ADMINISTRATIONS 

During Van Buren's administration no official action toward the 
acquisition of California was attempted. The straitened condition 
of the treasury precluded any idea of purchase, even had Mexico 
manifested a willingness to sell; while the strained relations exist- 
ing between the two nations throughout the greater part of this 
period served as an equally effective barrier.^ Nevertheless the af- 
fairs of the distant Mexican province were more than once brought 
to the attention of the United States and interest in its resources 
i and ultimate destiny grew with every passing year. 

Rebellion of 1836. — The first of these local events to attract 
attention was the revolution begun in the fall of 1836 by several 
of the prominent native Californians against the Mexican governor, 
Nicolas Gutierrez. Without great diflficulty the leaders^ in this 
movement accomplished their purpose, and after shipping Gutier- 
rez back to Mexico, placed one of their own number, Juan B. 
Alvarado, in the governor's chair.^ 

The success of this rebellion against Mexican authority was 
significant for two reasons. In the first place it was made pos- 
sible largely through the aid furnished by a company of foreigners, 

'Powhatan Ellis, the American chargg d'affaires to Mexico, had de- 
manded his passports in December, 1836, following Mexico's failure to 
adjust the claims of American citizens, and for three years the United 
States was without a representative at Mexico {Reeves, Diplomacy under 
Tyler and Polk, etc., 76). The chief source of difficulty between the two 
nations were the recognition of Texan independence by the United States 
on the one hand; and the long continued refusal of Mexico to settle the 
American claims on the other. 

-The leaders in this revolution were Juan B. Alvarado, inspector of the 
Monterey custom house, holder of certain civil offices and a man of great 
po23ularity; Jose Castro, governor of California preceding Gutierrez; and 
Mariano G. Vallejo, who, though taking no active part, lent the weight 
of his powerful influence to the other leaders. Bancroft, XX, 445-447, 
passim. 

*The authorities for the revolution of 1836 are numerous. The forego- 
ing account has been taken chiefly from Bancroft, XX, 445-578; Franklin 
Tuthill, The History of California, 141-145; and various works of less 
importance. Full citation of all authorities on the subject are given in 
• Bancroft. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 19 

mostly American trappers, led by Isaac Graham, a Tenneseean 
of the typical border ruffian type. And in the second place it 
gave promise for a time of assuming the characteristics and pro- 
portions of the Texas movement for independence.'^ But as the 
California leaders probably had no very great desire for actual 
separation from Mexico, its net result was merely the substitution 
of a native governor for one of Mexican appointment. 

Exaggerated rumors of this disturbance soon began to circulate 
throughout the United States, and it was even reported to the 
State Department that California, having d;eclared her inde- 
pendence, was on the eve of asking the protection of the Eussians 
at Bodega — an event which would mean, said the writer, the United 
States consul at the Sandwich Islands, the unification of the Eus- 
sians and Californians and the extension of the Czar's power from 
the Bay of San Francisco to the Columbia Eiver.^ 

Kelley's Memoir. — iDuring the administration of Van Buren the 
question of the occupation of Oregon came also to be of critical 
importance;^ and, as a natural consequence, California received 
a certain amount of the nation's interest. In a supplemental 
report on the Oregon territory submitted to Congress, February 
16, 1839, by the committee of foreign affairs, many of the docu- 
ments contained references to California. While one of them, a 
memoir by Hall J. Kelley, the eccentric emigration enthusiast of 
Massachusetts, devoted more than half its space to a description of 
that country. "I extend my remarks to this part of California," 
from San Francisco northward, wrote Kelley in explanation, "be- 
cause it has been and may again be, made the subject of con- 
ference and negotiation between Mexico and the United States; 
and because its future addition to our M^estern possessions is most 
unquestionably a matter to be desired."'^ 

^According to Tuthill a lone star flag was prepared, but the Californians 
were either afraid to substitute it for the Mexican emblem or did not 
care to do so. Tuthill, 142-143. 

^United States consul, Sandwich Islands, to the Secretary of State, 
Semi-annual report. March 12, 1837 (Thomas Savage, Dociimentos para 
la historia de California, II, 174-176. MS., Bancroft Collection, Univer- 
sity of California Library). The greater part of this report was devoted 
to a description of California. 

"Greenhow, 375-376, and United States government documents there 
cited. 

"'Committee Reports, 25 Cong., 3 sess., No. 101, p. 48. Kelley's com- 



20 Early SentUnent for Annexation of Calif orma 

Affairs between 1S3G-1840. — It cannot be said, however, in spite 
of such efforts as those put forth by Kelley, that the years between 
1836 and 1840 were distinguished by any marked increase of im- 
migration from the United States into California.® The early 
traffic along the coast in furs had materially decreased; and even 
inland, the business was becoming less remunerative. Yet the 
great interior valleys still offered lucrative fields for the roving 
bands of American, English, and French trappers who, when not 
engaged in their ordinary trade, frequently made additional profit 
by driving off the horses of the Californians, or by joining thieving 
expeditions sent out by the Indians for the same purpose.® The 
hide and tallow trade likewise continued to flourish,^'' and re- 
mained so completely a monopoly of the New England merchants, 
so far at least as Americans were concerned,^^ that, on the coast, 
Boston and the United States became synonymous terms.^^ An 
occasional vessel from the government's South Pacific squadron 
touched at California ports ;^' a trade in cattle between Oregon 
and the region around San Francisco served to bring these two 
territories into closer relationships;^* the publication of various 

plete memoir, addressed to Caleb Gushing, is on pp. 3-61 ; his description 
of California occupies pp. 48-53. 

^Bancroft, XXI, 117. The number of foreign adults residing in Cali- 
fornia at this time is placed at 380. 

'John Bidwell, California in 18Jfl-8. MS., Bancroft Collection, 99. 

*°The vessels engaged in thig trade, usually of four or five hundred 
tons burden, with cargoes of shoes, hats, furniture, farming implements, 
chinaware, iron, hardware, crockery, etc., valued at forty or fifty thousand 
dollars in California, spent usually three years each on the coast before 
returning to New England. They sold largely on credit, evaded the 
Mexican tariflf laws by paying five or six hundred dollars for the privilege 
of selling goods from place to place, and received from the Californians 
instead of money, hides, tallow, dried beef, lumber, and soap. See Thomas 
0. Larkin, Description of California, 99, in his Official Correspondence, 
Bancroft Collection; same to Secretary of State, Jan. 1, 1845, Ihid., Pt. 
II, No. 16. 

"Yet see Niles' Register, LVIII, 356, for a St. Louis owned vessel en- 
gaged in this trade. 

"Richard Henry Dana, Jr., Two Years before the Mast (Boston. 1869), 
169. 

"The U. S. S. Peacock arrived at Monterey in October, 1836, having 
been requested to visit the California coast because of the disturbances 
arising from the revolt of that year. The American merchants of the 
Sandwich Islands who had large interests at stake in California were the 
principal petitioners. Bancroft, XXI, 140-2. 

^^Ibid., 85-87; Slacum'a Report, 39. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of Calijornia SI 

books upon California's resources and political condition tended 
to attract the attention of the outside worJ 1 ;^^ and, finally, the 
coming of John A. Sutter in 1839 and Tie establishment of his 
fort at New Helvetia, the present site of the capital of the State, 
saved the period under discussion from L oing by any means barren 
of results for the American interest-^. 

Neither should the reflexive ii'lluence of the events in Texas 
be omitted in this conneetio'i. \\e have already mentioned the 
revolution in 1836 and the rp^-iorts that California was preparing 
to follow the steps of htr sister province. The American mind, 
especially in the west. i\.d J.ever a high conception of the Mexican 
people; the ease v/itli which Texas won her independence and the 
senseless atrocities of the Mexican soldiers he'd served to increase 
this feeling to a considerable extent; and restless spirits were 
already advocating a re-enactment of the scenes of Texas in 
California. Immigration, however, had not furnished sufficient 
Americans for carrying out such a program, but it was freely 
prophesied that these would shortly come. 

"To such men as the Back-settlers distance is of little moment," 
wrote Alexander Forbes in 1838, 

and they are already acquainted with the route. The north 
American tide of population must roll on southward, and over- 
whelm not only California but other more important states. This 
latter event, however, is in the womb of time; but the invasion 
of California by American settlers is daily talked of; and if 
Santa Anna had prevailed against Texas a portion of its inhab- 
itants sufficient to overrun California would now have been its 
masters.^® 

The Graham affair. — So common had become these rumors by 
1840 that in April of that year nearly a hundred^^ English and 

^^The most representative books of this period were Dana's Tivo Years 
before the Mast, and Alexander Forbes's California: A history of Upper 
and Lotoer California (London. Smith. Elder and Company. 1839). 
For a revieAV of this latter work and the interest it aroused see Niles' 
Register, LVIII, 70. Numerous other books were written by travelers 
who visited California during this period, but as they were not published 
until later no mention is made of them in this place. 

^"Forbes, History of California, 152. 

"Larkin to Secretary of State, April 20, 1844 — one hundred arrested; 
fifty sent in irons to San Bias, thence overland to Tepic. Larkin, Official 
Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 6. 



22 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

American residents in California, who were without passports, 
were suddenly arrested for engaging in a plot to overthrow the 
government and declare the country independent of Mexican con- 
trol.^'* Chief of these so-called conspirators was Isaac Graham, 
whose name has already been mentioned in connection with the 
revolt of the Californians four years before. 

Graham and some fifty of his companions, after undergoing 
a farcical trial at Santa Barbara and some pretty severe treatment 
at the hands of the California officials, were shipped doMoi the 
coast and thence to Tepic. Here the English consul, Barron, and 
Alexander Forbes secured the release of most of the prisoners and 
a speedy trial for the remainder, which resulted in their acquittal. 
Some received immediate indemnity for their losses and ill-treat- 
ment; others returned to California to secure legal evidence against 
the government, being aided in this by a vessel of the United 
States navy.^'' 

The illegal arrest of such a large number of American citizens 
naturally excited some comment in the United States. Powhatan 
Ellis, who had returned as Minister to Mexico in 1839, was in- 
structed to demand satisfaction for the treatment accorded his 
countrymen and their immediate release if still in captivity.-** 

^^Commandancia General de California al E. S. Ministro de Guerra y 
Marina (Mexico), April 25, 1840. In this communication the chief ob- 
ject of the conspirators was said to be control of the whole stretch of ter- 
ritory around San Francisco Bay. M. G. Vallejo, Documentos •para la his- 
toria de California, IX. No. 124. MSS., Bancroft Collection. See also 
Nos. 108, 110-111, Ibid.; Bancroft. XXI, 11-14, and authorities cited; 
Alfred Robinson, Life in Calif orma (New York. Wiley & Putnam. 1846), 
180-184. 

"Albert J. Morris, Diary of a Crazy Man, or An Account of the Graham 
Affair of IS.'fO (MS., Bancroft Collection). Morris was one of the Eng- 
lisli prisoners, employed in a distillery at the time of his arrest, by 
Graham. His picture of the sufferings endured at the hands of the Cali- 
fornia officials is very vivid and probably but little exaggerated. Most 
of those arrested, however, were insolent, overbearing, and an altogether 
undesirable class of citizens. See, also. Bancroft, XXI, 1-41 ; Thomas 
Jefferson Farnham, Life and Adventures in CaHfoi~nia and Scenes in the 
Pacific Ocean (New York. W. H. Graham. 1846), 70 et seq. Farnham 
followed the prisoners from Monterey to Santa Barbara and later to 
Tepic. His account, however, is too biased to be relied upon. Tuthill, 
History of California, 145-147. 

^'Forsyth to Ellis, Aug. 21, 1840; same to same, July 1, 1841. MSS., 
State Department. 

It should also be noted that this event first called the official atten- 
tion of the British government to California. See Ephraim Douglass 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of Californ'ia 23 

Eeports of the affair soon found their way into print and for a 
long time served as proof positive for American readers of the 
cruelty of the Califomians.^^ Later, also, the non-payment of 
indemnity by Mexico was made the subject of official protest;-^ 
while several years afterwards, Polk was assured by his confidential 
agent that no claim or demand so strong as that of the Graham 
prisoners could be brought against Mexico to secure a cession of 
California.-^ 

As a further result of these arbitrary proceedings against for- 
eigners, a petition was drawn up by the merchants of the Cali- 
fornia coast, many of whom., however, had little use for Graham 
and those of his ilk,-* praying that a United States ship might 
be stationed permanently in California waters because of the 
insecurity of property, arbitrariness of the authorities, and 
mockery of justice prevailing in the province.^^ This request 
met with prompt recognition from the Secretary of the Navy, 
Abel P. Upshur, who on December 4, 1841 announced in his 
annual report to Congress that the protection of American 
interests in California demanded an increase of the government's 
naval force in the Pacific, and shortly afterwards despatched 
Commodore Ap Catesby Jones to take command of the enlarged 
squadron.^* 

Adams, British Interests and Activities in Texas, 1838-18/(6 (Baltimore. 
The Johns Hopkins Press. 1910), 236-237. 

^^Niles' Register, LVIII, 371. Farnham's account was especially bitter 
against the Californians. Earlier editions of this book, under various titles, 
were published in 1841-3-4. 

"Thompson to Bocanegra, Dec. 31, 1843. MS., State Department. 
Mexico afterwards paid part of this. Thompson to Secretary of State, 
February 2, 1844. Ibid. 

^Larkin to Secretary of State, June 15, 1846. Larkin, Official Corre- 
spondence, Pt. II, No. 47. 

^'Bancroft, XXI, 7-8, and notes. 

'''MS., State Department, Mexico, 1840, No. 10. 

=^Report of the Secretary of the Navy. Senate Docs., 27 Cong., 1 sess., 
I, No. 1, pp. 368-369. Upshur dwelt at considerable length upon the 
Graham affair, spoke of the increased immigration to California, and said 
that the insecurity of American interests there demanded the protection 
of a naval force. The whale fisheries in the Pacific likewise required the 
presence of several United States vessels in the ocean; and the Gulf of 
California should be more thoroughly explored and charted. 

For an explanation of this increase by Upshur of the Pacific squadron 
as a deep laid plot on the part of the slave holders to seize California, 
see William Jay, A Review of the Causes and Consequences of the Mexi- 
can War (Boston, Philadelphia, New York. 1849), 81-82. 



24 Early tSentiment for Annexation of California 

Immigration lSJ^O-1. — More important, however, for the Ameri- 
can cause than any of the results that came from the arrest of 
Graham and his companions, was the beginning of organized 
emigration to California during the years 1840-1841. The reports 
spread by trappers, adventurers, travellers, and Americans residing 
in California, had by this time begun to bear definite fruit. The 
west, especially, had become interested in the Pacific Coast and 
looked to Oregon and California as fields for future settlement. 
So great was the enthusiasm in Platte County, Missouri, for ex- 
ample, that public meetings were held, committees appointed, and 
a pledge dravsTi up, to which five hundred names were appended, 
binding its signers to convert their property into emigrant out- 
fits and start in the following May-^ from the rendezvous at 
Sapling Grove, Kansas, for California. Though a number of cir- 
cumstances served to cool this ardor,-^ and only forty-eight persons 
left for California at the time agreed upon,-^ the departure of 
these is significant as foreshadowing a movement that, with occa- 
sional interruption, was to continue with increasing energy during 
the next five years. 

John Bidwell, a member of this early party, has left us a typical 
story of how he and his neighbors and many another family of 
the west became interested in California between 1840 and the 
outbreak of the Mexican War. At the time of which we are 
speaking, BidAvell's neighborhood had become considerably excited 
over the stories of one whom he described as a "calm, considerate 
man" 1)y the name of Eubidoux. This story-stelling traveller, 

"Bidwell. California: Josiah Belden, Historical statement (MS., Ban- 
croft Collection); Bancroft, XXI, 264-75. 

The immediate causes of this enthusiasm for a migration to California 
were letters received from Dr. John Marsh, an American resident of Cali- 
fornia, and the stories of Rubidoux. 

^One cause given both by Bidwell and Bancroft was the eflforts of Mis- 
souri merchants to discourage the movement, through misrepresentations 
of California. 

^'Only one of these, Bidwell, had signed the original pledge. The party 
left May 19, under the command of John Bartleson, in company with a 
second band of seventeen persons bound for Oregon under the direction 
of a noted trapper, Fitzpatrick. They followed the usual route of hunt- 
ers and traders to the Rocky Mountains — "up the north fork of the 
Platte, by the Sweetwater through the South Pass, and down and up 
branches of Green River, to Bear River Valley near Great Salt Lake" 
Bancroft, XXI, 268-269. Here they separated, some of the California 
party joining the Oregonians, and the remainder, pressing on, eventually 
reached Marsh's rancho in November, after considerable hardship. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 35 

whose brother Joseph was a well-known western trader, having 
recently returned from a trip to California, brought back such 
marvelous reports of the productiveness of its soil and the genial 
qualities of its climate, that a public meeting was held "to hear 
more about this wonderful country on the Pacific Coast." When 
Eubidoux had finished his address before this gathering, repeating 
perhaps in a more formal way what he had already told many in 
private conversation, he became the target of questions from the 
audience. One easily imagines the form these took, regarding 
some particular phase of California conditions in which individuals 
were interested; or in respect to the length and hardships of the 
overland journey. 

One ague-racked member of the assembly even wanted to know 
if chills and fever prevailed in that country which Eubidoux 
had described as a "perfect paradise, a perpetual spring." "There 
never was but one man in California who had the chills," replied 
Eubidoux. "He was from Missouri and carried the disease in 
his system. It was such a curiosity to see a man shake with the 
chills that the people of Monterey went eighteen miles into the 
country to see him."^'' Unfortunately Bidwell neglects to state 
how many of the forty-eight who eventually left Sapling Grove 
were influenced by this answer to seek an escape from the malaria 
of the Mississippi Valley and the mournful sufferings to which so 
many of the early settlers were exposed. 

The growing interest of the United States was not wholly con- 
fined to the west during these years, however. Notice of the emi- 
grant parties that were leaving Missouri was printed in the eastern 
papers. In Eochester, New York, John J. Warner, while advocating 
the building of a railroad across the continent to tbe Columbia, 
devoted much of his public lectures to a description of California 
and the advantages of San Francisco Bay.^^ Harvey Baldwin, 
from the same neighborhood, perhaps influenced by Warner, ad- 
dressed a long letter to the president, contrasting the commercial 
importance and resources of California with the comparative worth- 
lessness of the Oregon territory and virging him to take immediate 

'"Bidwell, California, 5-6. 

'^Warner's lecture was printed in the New York Journal of Commerce 
and in the Colonial Magazine, V, 229-236. Bancroft, XXI, 223. 



26 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

steps toward its acquisition.^^ It was in the summer of 1841, also, 
that an exploring expedition of six vessels under command of 
Lieutenant Charles Wilkes reached San Francisco Bay, with special 
instructions from the government to make careful surveys of that 
harbor.^^ And thus in many ways^* the people and government 
of the United States were kept in touch with California and its 
affairs during the early part of the decade beginning with 1840. 

Attitude of the Calif ornians. — The feeling among the California 
officials over the arrival of the immigrant parties of 1841 was one 
partly of alarm and partly of acquiesence. Early in May, 1841, 
General Almonte, Mexican Minister of War, wrote ,to Vallejo, 
the Comandante General of California, concerning tlte reported 
emigration of fifty-eight families from Missouri, and gave strict 
orders that every foreigner should be compelled to show a passport 
or leave the country. In the despatch Almonte had also enclosed 
a clipping from the National Intelligencer regarding "the con- 
venience and necessity of the acquisition of the Californias by 
the United States" and one of similar tenor from the Wash- 
ington ''Glova."^^ Nor, with such evidence at hand, is it sur- 
prising that he further warned Vallejo to put but little trust in the 
alleged claim of the Americans that they were coming with peace- 
ful intentions. The Texas immigrants had made the same false 
assertion. 

But in spite of this command from Mexico, the Californians 
showed little desire to molest the respectable class of settlers from 
the United States. The members of the Bartleson party were 
compelled to explain their presence in the country and submit to 
the formalities of a nominal arrest after which they were free to 

'^Baldwin to Tyler. Jan. 19, 1843. enclosing a copy of a letter to Van 
Buren, of Sept. 27, 1840. MS., State Department, Miscellaneous Letters. 
1843. Baldwin perhaps was interested in a personal way in the acquisi- 
tion of California. He suggested in his communication that the Ameri- 
can claims might be made the basis for negotiation; while Jay (Mexican 
War, 37, 40, 43) mentions a Baldwin as one of the claimants. 

^^Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, 'Narrative of the United States Exploring 
Expedition during the Years 1838-^2 (Philadelphia. 1845), I, page 
XXVII; Davis, Sixty Years in California, 127 et seq., says Wilkes stated 
this was with the view of future acquisition. 

**The rumor of English activities in California was one of the most 
potent factors at this time. Niles' Register, LVIII, 2, 70. Further men- 
tion of this is, however, reserved for future discussion. 

"Vallejo, Documentos, No. 146. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 27 

go and come as they pleased. ^^ While the reception of those arriving 
by the southern route, though tinged somewhat with suspicion, 
was equally free from any manifestations of hostility.^'^ 

Efforts of Waddy Thotiipson. — A period of renewed activity 
in the efforts of the United States to gain possession of California, 
began with the accession of Tyler to the presidency. Shortly be- 
fore his recall from Mexico, Powhatan Ellis had written to 
Webster, then Secretary of State, urging the necessity of securing 
certain ports on the Pacific on account of the increase of American 
commerce and the growing importance of the whale fisheries. ^^ 
While with the coming of Waddy Thompson as United States 
minister, a very definite movement was set on foot looking to the 
purchase of the territory. ^^ 

In his first despatch to the home government, Thompson showed 
himself a surprising enthusiast for such an acquisition. Mexico, 
he thought, would be willing to cede both California and Texas 
in return for a cancellation of the American claims against her.*** 
But of the two, Texas was by far the less desirable, having no 
comparison in value with California — "the richest, the most beau- 
tiful, and healthiest country in the world." Control of Upper 
California, continued Thompson, would eventually mean the as- 
cendency of the United States over the whole Pacific. The bay 
of San Francisco was "capacious enough to receive the navies of 
all the world," while the neighboring forests could supply timber 
suJSicient "to build all the ships of these navies." With this bay 
in her possession, and the harbors of San Diego and Monterey, 
the nation would have not only necessary ports for her whaling 

^^A second party mimbering twenty-five, organized partly in Missouri 
and partly from Americans in New Mexico, had reached Los Angeles via 
the Santa Fe Trail about the time the Bartleson company arrived in the 
north. The Californians at first were afraid that these had been con- 
cerned in the Texan expedition against Santa Fe (Bancroft, XXI, 276- 
287). 

^UUd., 274-275. 

''Ellis to Webster, .Jan. 22, 1842 (MS., State Department). On March 
10th, Thomas Carlile was appointed consul at San Francisco by Tyler. 
Webster to Thompson, April 8, 1842. MS., State Department. 

^Thompson reached Vera Cruz April 10, 1842. See Waddy Thompson, 
Recollections of Mexico (New York and London. Wiley and Putnam. 
1847), 1. 

*"This was the only way in which Thompson saw any hope of Mexican 
creditors receiving satisfaction. 



28 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

vessels; but by opening vq} internal communication with the Ar- 
kansas and other western streams, could "secure the trade of India 
and the whole Pacific Ocean." 

In agricultural lines, also, Thompson was assured that California 
would prove of immense value to the United States, and one 
day become the "granary of the Pacific." He also believed that, 
as slavery was not necessary there, the north and south could 
arrange another compromise. "I am profoundly satisfied," he 
concluded, after warning Webster against the designs of France 
and England upon the territory, 

that in its bearing upon all the interests of our country, agri- 
cultural, political, manufacturing, commercial and fishing, the 
importance of the acquisition of California cannot be overesti- 
mated. If I could mingle any selfish feelings with interests to 
my country so vast, I would desire no higher honor than to be 
an instrument in securing it.*^ 

Ten days after he had written this despatch to the Secretary 
of State, Thompson sent one of like tenor to the president. 
"Since my despatch to Mr. Webster," he began, 

I have had an interview with Gen. Santa Anna and although I 
did not broacli to him directly the subject of our correspondence 
I have but little doubt that I shall be able to accomplish your 
wishes and to add also the acquisition of Upper California. 

This latter, I believe, will be by far the most important event 
that has occurred to our country. Do me the favor to read my 
despatch to Mr. Webster in which my views of the matter are 
briefly sketched — I should be most happy to illustrate your ad- 
ministration and my own name by an acquisition of such lasting 
benefit to my own country. 

Upon this subject I beg your special instructions, both as to 
moving on the matter and the extent to which I am to go in the 
negotiations and the amount to be paid. The acquisition of Upper 
California will reconcile the northern people as they have large 
fishing and commercial interests in the Pacific and we have liter- 
ally no port there. Be pleased also to have me pretty strongly 
instructed on the subject of our claims or leave the responsibility 

"Thompson to Webster, April 29, 1842. MS., State Department. Much 
of the substance of this despatch was afterwards embodied by Thompson 
in his Recollections (pp. 233-238). A summary is also printed in Reeves, 
100-101, but the quotations are not verhatim as the text would seem to 
indicate. See also Rives's The United States and Mexico, II, 46. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 29 

to me. Procrastination, the policy of all weak governments, is 
peculiarly so with this, and they are very poor and will never 
pay us one farthing unless pretty strong measures are taicen.*- 

Late in June Webster answered Thompson's despatches, giving 
him full liberty to sound the Mexican government upon the sub- 
ject of ceding a portion of her territory on the Pacific in satis- 
faction of all, or a part of the Am(^rican claims. "Although it 
is desirable that you should present the Port and Harbor of St. 
Francisco as the prominent object to be obtained," wrote Webster, 
"3'et if a cession should be made, the Province would naturally 
accompany the Port. It may be useful however for divers reasons, 
that the convenience and benefit of the Port itself, should at least 
for the present, be spoken of as what is chiefly desired by the 
United States." In conclusion, Thompson was advised to proceed 
in a circumspect manner with the negotiations, and especially 
warned against giving the impression that the United States was 
eager for the purchase, since it would be far better to convey 
the idea that she was willing to settle the debt in this way simply 
for the convenience of Mexico.*^ 

During the summer of 1842 one further communication re- 
garding California came from Thompson; but this, being in the 
form of a warning against English encroachments, will be con- 
sidered in another connection. Toward the close of the year 
all thought of negotiation was temporarily cut short, as it hap- 
pened, when Webster was especially anxious to secure Mexico's 
consent to 'Wie tripartite agreement,^^ by the seizure of the port 
of Monterey by Commodore Jones, who, as we have seen, had 
been placed in command of the Pacific squadron by Secretary 
Upshur nearly a year before. 

The details of this incident have been described so frequently 
that it would be useless to repeat them here.*^ It may simply 

■"Thompson to Tyler, May 9, 1842. MS., State Department; mentioned 
also by Reeves, 101. 

*'Webster to Thompson, .June 27, 1842, in The Writings and Speeches 
of Daniel Wehster (National Edition. Boston. Little, Brown & Com- 
pany. 1903), XIV, 611-612. See also Reeves, 102, for different portions 
of the same letter. 

"See below, pp. 35-7. 

^'Bancroft, XXI, 298-329; Lyon G. Tyler, Letters and Times of the 
Tylers (Richmond. Whittet & Shepperson. 1885), II, 265-267; H. Von 



30 Early Sentwient for Annexation of California 

be said that the American commander, convinced by various re- 
ports that the United States and Mexico were at war*^ and that 
the latter was on the point of ceding California to Great Britain,^* 
sailed as rapidly as possible from Callao to Monterey, which he 
took possession of without opposition, beyond a formal protest 
from the California officials. The next day, realizing that he had 
made a mistake, Jones surrendered the town to its former owners 
with formal apology for his error. 

The seizure of Monterey, so far as the Califomians themselves 
were concerned, seems to have been taken pretty much as a matter 
of course. A full report was forwarded to the Mexican Govern- 
ment*® and the authorities at Los Angeles availed themselves of 
the opportunity to charge the captain of one of Jones's vessels, 
the Alert, with spiking the artillery at San Diego and injuring 
the harbor.^** American residents were naturally uneasy for a 
time lest they should suffer from the ill-will engendered among the 
Californians by the occ-uiTence,^^ but their fears were entirely 
groundless. ^^ 

Hoist, The Constitutional and Political History of the United States 
(Chicago. Callaghan and Company. 1881), II, 615-620; H. Ex. Docs., 
27 Cong., 3 Sess., No. 166, for official account. Many of the secondary 
accounts were written with a decided bias against the American com- 
mander. For example, Jay (pp. 82-86) described it as wholly a move 
on the part of the slave-holding South. 

*'Jones obtained his information from a letter written by John Parrott, 
the United States consul at Mazatlan, on .June 22. Enclosed was a copy 
of El Cosmoplita of .June 4, containing the threatening letters of Boca- 
negra to Webster concerning the Texas difficulties. Rumors of war were 
common all along the Pacific coast at the time (Johnson to Larkin, 
Honolulu, May 26, 1842 — "word received from the United States that 
war may be declared any day." Larkin MSS., I, No. 276 ; Davis to Lar- 
kin, May 30, 1842 — -"war declared against Mexico." Ibid.). Larkin's 
Official Correspondence is designated as such; his private correspondence 
will hereafter be referred to simply as above — Larkin MSS. 

**A copy of a Boston paper, with an extract from the New Orleans 
Courier of April 19, stating that Mexico had ceded California to England 
for $7,000,000, had fallen into his hands. The departure of Admiral 
Thomas with a British fleet under sealed orders from Callao, lent addi- 
tional weight to the rumor. 

^'Bocanegra to Thompson, Dec. 28, 1841. MS., State Department. 

'^"Ibid. 

"I. C. Jones, a resident of Santa Barbara, wrote that he considered the 
seizure of Monterey the act of a madman, which would be followed by 
deplorable results for all Americans in California. He was, however, a 
confirmed pessimist. Jones to Larkin, Larkin MSS., I, No. 357. 

^-Larkin to Secretary of State, April 16, 1844 — Contrary to expecta- 
tions Jones's action did not engender any ill-will among the Californians 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 31 

In Mexico^ however, a different spirit prevailed. Jones had re- 
ported his action both to the authorities at Washington and to 
Waddy Thompson at Mexico City.^^ Without waiting for instruc- 
tions from the department, the American minister at once dis- 
avowed the seizure of the California town and promised satisfaction 
for any loss thereby sustained.^* Jones was recalled and tem- 
porarily deprived of his command; while Webster made formal 
apologies in the name of the government for the proceedings. 
But beyond this, in the infliction of a far heavier penalty de- 
manded by the Mexican Minister upon the American commodore, 
both Webster and Tyler refused to go.^^ 

In the United States, also, the capture of Monterey furnished 
John Quincy Adams and others of his kind with fresh ammunition 
for onslaughts against the administration and its policy of an- 
nexing Mexican territory. ^^ Eeports of these attacks and over- 
drawn charges made by the Americans against the American 
president reached Mexico, and served to increase there the spirit 
of hostility and suspicion already engendered by the incident.^^ 
So that Thompson was compelled to notify his government that 
it was "wholly out of the question to do anything as to California 
and after recent events there it would be imprudent to allude 
to it in any way," the only possibility of securing territory at all 
lying in a cession of San Francisco some time in the future when 
Mexico should find herself unable to pay the awards of the 
American claims.^^ 

but had rather the reverse effect. Larkin, Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 
No. 4. 

"Jones to Tliompson, Oct. 22, 1842. MS., State Department. 

'^Reeves. 106. Thompson was not ofReially notified to take this course 
for some months. Webster to Thompson, Jan. 27, 1843. MS., State De- 
partment. 

"Tyler to Webster, Jan. — , 1843. Webster MSS., Library of Con- 
gress; same to same, Feb. 9, 1843. Tyler's Letters and Times of the 
Tylers, II, 267. 

""For Adams's attitude, see his Memoirs, XI, 304 et seq. 

"Thompson to Webster, Jan. 5, 1843 — "Tliey are printing in all their 
newspapers the speech of Mr. Adams made in Massachusetts, and with 
most injurious effect as it confirms all their unfounded suspicions against 
us." MS., State Department. 

''Thompson to Webster, Jan. 30, 1843. Webster MSS. A new scheme 
connecting California with these unpaid claims had also been suggested 
to Webster by Brantz Mayer, formerly secretary of legation under Thomp- 
son, upon his return to Washington. Mayer's plan, instead of requiring 



32 Earhj Sentiment for Annexation of California 

The proposed Tripartite Agreement. — While this correspondence 
was being carried on with the American minister at Mexico City, 
Webster was also making tentative efforts to bring about an ar- 
rangement between Great Britain, Mexico and the United States 
for the settlement of the three vexed questions of Texas, Oregon, 
and California. As early as the summer of 1842, when Lord 
Ashburton was in this country as special commissioner, Webster 
had approached him with the suggestion of settling the Oregon 
boundary line by ceding the American claims to territory north 
of the Columbia to Great Britain, in return for a portion of Cal- 
ifornia that should be purchased from Mexico by the two nations 
in common. ^^ 

By the beginning of 1843 this idea had come to assume an im- 
portant place in the plans of the administration.*^'' Thompson 
was instructed to sound the Mexican government on the subject, 
and it was likewise brought to the notice of General Almonte, 
Mexican minister at Washington.*'^ As England was known to 
favor it, a rough outline for the basis of negotiations was sent by 
Webster to Edward Everett, American ambassador at London.*'^ 
The terms of this were as follows : 

immediate cession on the part of Mexico, substituted a mortgage to be held 
by the United States chiefly on "such parts of California or such ports in 
that department as might be serviceable to our trade in the Pacific and 
useful to us politically." Such a pledge would result in ultimate owner- 
ship by the United States or punctual payments on the part of Mexico. 
Mayer to Webster, Dec. 9, 1842, MS., State Department. It may be 
added that this plan of a mortgage probably originated in the reports 
that English creditors held such a pledge. Thompson, who had quarreled 
with Mayer, considered his letter an extreme liberty even for one of 
Mayer's characteristic "vanity and impertinence." Thompson to Webster, 
Jan. 30, 1843. MS., State Department. 

"^'Tyler's Letters and Times of the Tylers, II, 260-261; Adams, Memoirs, 
XI, 347. 

""Reeves (p. 102) rather infers that the California project received 
scant attention from Webster and Tyler. The documents quoted in the 
text, it is believed, will contradict this idea. 

»^Webster to Everett, Jan. 29, 1843. Webster, Works, XVI, 393-396, 
passim. 

''^Reeves, in a note, p. 103, says that Webster's instructions to Everett, 
regarding this tripartite agreement, do not appear on file in the State 
Department. His account has therefore been based wholly on Everett's 
note to Calhoun of March 28, 1845, in which mention is made of the in- 
structions sent by Webster. See also Schaefer's "British Attitude toward 
the Oregon Question." Amer. Hist. Rev., XVI, 293-294, note. It is signifi- 
cant that Webster's biographer prints only a part of this letter of Jan. 29, 
leaving out all portions relating to California or the triparite agreement. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 33 

1. Mexico to cede Upper California to the United States. 

2. The United States to pay millions of dollars for 

the cession. 

3. Of this sum, millions to be paid to American 

claimants against Mexico. 

4. The remainder to English creditors or bondholders of 
Mexico. 

5. The Oregon boundary to be settled on the line of the 
Columbia.®^ 

Both Webster and Tyler felt that this tripartite arrangement 
would prove the means of satisfying all sections of the country.®* 
Tyler, especially, was anxious to include the admission of California 
in the terms of any treaty resulting from it, writing to Webster 
that "Texas might not stand alone, nor . . . the line proposed 
for Oregon. Texas would reconcile all to the line, while California 
would reconcile or pacify all to Oregon.'"*^ He was even anxious 
to send Webster on a special mission to Great Britain,^® and 
Webster expressed a willingness to go provided he could settle the 
Oregon question and obtain California, for Webster had as much 
desire to secure the latter, if not more, as did Tyler.®'^ 

The idea of a special mission was, however, cut short by the 
adverse action of Congress.®^ Tyler then endeavored to persuade 

George Ticknor Curtis, lAfe of Daniel Wehster (New York. D. Appleton 
and Company. 1870), 175-177. George Bancroft, as late as March, 1844, 
wrote to Van Buren as though this discovery that Webster had been try- 
ing to secure California were a great piece of news. It interested Van 
Buren so much that he tried to find out the details from Silas Wright, 
who could give him no information. Bancroft to Van Buren, April 11, 
1844. Van Buren MSS., Library of Congress. Van Buren's interest 
doubtless arose from the political value of such information in connec- 
tion with the question of Texas annexation. 

^'Webster to Everett, as cited, p. 394. 

"Webster saw in it the means of winning over the two-thirds vote 
necessary for the ratification of the boundary treaty -wath Great Britain 
(lUd., 394-395). 

°=Tyler to Webster, undated. Webster MSS. 

°°Same to same, undated. Webster MSS. ". . . what is contem- 
plated is much more important than what has been done. The mission 
will be large and imposing" — same to same, Feb. 26, 1843. Itid. See, 
also, Tyler's Letters and Times of the Tylers, II, 261, for the same letters. 

"For Webster's interest in California, see his letter of Jan. 29, to 
Everett, already cited so frequently. He afterwards wrote that he con- 
sidered the bay of San Francisco twenty times more valuable to the 
United States than all Texas. Curtis, Life of Wehster, II, 250. 

'*Tyler'9 Lett&rs and Times of the Tylers, II, 263. 



34 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

Everett to accept the new embassy to China in order that Webster 
might take his place in London and carry through the measure 
under discussion. But Everett, preferring the pleasures of the 
Court of St. James to the uncertainties of the Mandarin ministry, 
declined the exchange.®^ About this time, also, Thompson's des- 
patch of January 30 reached Washington, with the information 
that it would be useless to approach Mexico regarding the cession 
of any territory; and Webster, whose days of usefulness in the 
cabinet were over, and who saw no prospects of effecting anything 
further, either regarding the adjustment of the Oregon difficulties 
or the acquisition of California, retired to private life.'^"^ 

Following Webster's resignation, and the death of Hugh S. 
Legare, after only a month's service as Secretary ad interim. 
the cabinet was reorganized, and in July, Abel P. Upshur, former 
Secretary of the Navy, became head of the Department of State. 

Effect of Mexican hostility to England. — At this time interest 
centered primarily in Texas where matters were fast coming to a 
crisis; but in the fall of 1843 Thompson's despatches began to 
call attention again to California. On September 28 he wrote 
that the strong bond of friendship, formerly existing between Mex- 
ico and England, was fast giving way to a feeling of hostility 
that had manifested itself openly in an insult to the British 
flag.'^^ A few days later he reported an interview with Santa 
Anna in which he had been told that, in the event of a collision 
with Great Britian, which seemed probable, Mexico would look 
to the United States to protect California.'^- 

In less than two weeks Thompson again referred to the subject 
of his conversation with Santa Anna and assured Upshur that 
if war actually broke out between the two countries, Mexico would 
certainly cede California to the United States to keep it from 
falling into English hands. The comparison suggested- in this 
communication seems worthy of note : "You will remember." 
wrote Thompson, "that it was the fear of the seizure of Louisiana 
by England that induced Bonaparte to cede it to us. The ac- 
quisition of California will be of little less importance . . . 

^'Ibid. 

'"His resignation came May 8, 1843. 

■'iThompson to Upshur, Sept. 28, 1843. MS., State Department. 

'*Same to same, Oct. 3. Hid. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 35 

There is no prospect whatever of such a cession but in the event of 
a war between Mexico and England. Then nothing would be 
easier."'^^ 

Order against Americans. — In connection with this subject 
of the ill will of Mexico toward England the American min- 
ister had earlier reported a less hostile feeling prevailing 
toward his countrj-men in Mexico and that the government 
was coming to look upon them with a far more friendly eye.'^* 
If this were true at all, however, the change was of a purely 
temporary nature. As far back as July 14, an order had been 
issued to the governor of California,''^ Manuel Micheltorena, to 
expel all citizens of the United States from his province and 
prohibit future immigration.'^® This, however, did not come under 
Thompson's notice until late in December, when he at once vig- 
orously protested and demanded its reeission. His communications 
on the subject remaining unanswered, he threatened next to break 
off diplomatic relations, and even called for his passports. 

Upon this the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations assured 
him that the order was meant to apply to other foreigners as 
well as to Americans and had been aimed only at "seditious" inhab- 
itants of the province, to whose governor "very benevolent ex- 
planations" had been sent. This, though not satisfactory, was 
sufficient to prevent Thompson from leaving Mexico, especially 
as he had no great desire to carry his threat into execution; 
while upon his further remonstrance, the order was entirely 
countermanded.'^'' In obtaining the withdrawal of a somewhat 

''Thompson to Upshur. Oct. 14, 1S43. The omission indicated in quo- 
tation represents requests for instructions concerning California. Same 
to same, Oct. 29. Fear of war with England alone will enable him to 
conclude a new convention for the settlement of the American claims ; see 
also same to same, Nov. 20, and Jan. 16. MSS., State Department. 

'"Thompson to Upshur, Oct. 20, 184.3. MS., State Department. 

"Also to the Governors of Sonora, Sinaloa, and Chihuahua. 

'"Bancroft (XXI, 380-1) says there is no evidence that the order ever 
reached California. Thompson, on the contrary, wrote, in the despatch 
cited, that Micheltorena assured the Mexican government he had already 
taken measures to carry out the command. At least, however, it may 
be said that the law caused no excitement in California or uneasiness 
among the American residents. 

"For details regarding this command, see Thompson to Upshur, Jan. 4, 
1844 (MS., State Department) ; Thompson, Recollections, 227; 'Siles' 
Register, LXV, 353. 



36 Early Sentiment for Annexatmi of California 

similar law, prohibiting foreigners from engaging in retail trade 
either in Mexico or an}^ of her provinces, Thompson was not, 
however, by any means so successful.^^ 

On February 28, 1844, Upshnr lost his life by the explosion 
on board the Princeton, and Calhoun took his place in the cabinet, 
his appointment, according to Duff Green, having been urged for 
the three-fold purpose of conducting "the negotiation for the an- 
nexation of Texas, the purchase of California, and the adjustment 
of our northwestern boundary."^^ 

Easting's scheme for an independent California. — Ben E. Green, 
the son of Duff Green, who had been secretary of legation under 
Thompson, was appointed charge upon the return of the latter 
to the United States, and entrusted with securing the assent of 
Mexico to the annexation of Texas.^^" This was no easy task. 
Whatever ill-will there had been against England had died away, 
and though in its place some difficulty had arisen with France, 
the great weight of Mexican hostility was directed toward the 
government at Washington. But whether with France or with 
the United States, Santa Anna was openly advocating a foreign 
war to develop the nation's resources, and Green could see no ben- 
efit to be gained by this country from becoming a party to such a 
quarrel, "unless, indeed, we should end by gaining possession of 
California, and thereby secure a harborage for our shipping on 
the Pacific and one of the finest countries on the Globe."^^ 

A few days later, having received word of Upshur's death and 
Calhoun's appointment, Green wrote privately to the latter con- 
cerning some information in his possession, which he thought 

"Thompson (?) to Larkin, United States Legation, Mexico, March 1, 
1844. Has continued to hope that order would be rescinded but sees no 
hope for it now. Clear violation of treaty rijrhts, etc. Larkin MSS., II, 
No. 66. See, also, Thompson's Recollections, 229-230. 

"Duff Green, Facts and Suggestions (New York. Richardson & Co. 
1866), 85. 

*°Tyler's Letters and Times of the Tylers. II, 298; statement of Ben- 
jamin E. Green, Aug. 8, 1889. Ihid., Ill, 174-175. Johnston wrote Polk 
of a rumor that Green was authorized to offer $10,000,000 to Mexico, and 
the guaranty to her of the Californias against all other nations. Benton 
says the treaty when understood is more damnable than the correspond- 
ence." Johnston to Polk, May 5, 1844. Polk MSS., Library of Congress. 

'^Ben E. Green to Secretary of State, April 8, 1844. MSS., State De- 
partment. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 37 

might prove important in the Oregon and Texas negotiations.^- 
The substance of this was derived from a confidential interview 
about three months before with Lansford W. Hastings, a sometime 
resident of California, of whom we shall also have occasion to 
speak hereafter. 

Hastings, on his way from California to New York, had given 
Green very positive assurance that a movement for independence 
was on foot in California, and only waited his return, with a 
party of emigrants as reinforcements, before materializing. There 
was also talk in Oregon of uniting with California and forming a 
separate republic; and the movement once begun would speedily 
be joined by the Mexican provinces bordering upon Texas.®^ 
The certainty of this was rendered more imminent by Santa 
Anna's attempt to provoke a war with France, which, if it came 
and were properly managed, Avould result in the annexation of the 
disaffected provinces to Texas. With such an addition of territory. 
Green warned Calhoun, who was already prone to alanns, "that 
Texas would no longer desire admission to our Union, but on the 
contrary would prove a dangerous rival both to the cotton interests 
of the South and the manufactures of the North."^* 

Efforts of Duff Green. — Following this despatch Calhoun re- 
ceived a more detailed report on California and the whole Mexican 
situation from a personal interview with Waddy Thompson who 
returned about this time from Mexico.^^ The rejection of the 
Texas treaty in the senate on June 9, however, left little place in 
the plans of the administration for immediate action regarding 

'^Green spoke of Calhoun's appointment as "with a view to the Oregon 
and Texas questions." It is to be noted that, as in this despatch which 
spoke of Oregon and Texas only in a subordinate relation to California, 
California was often included under the general heading of "the Oregon 
question," or the "Texas question." 

''As Hastings had given this information to Green three months before, 
the time for the denouement in California was probably not far away. 

**Green to Calhoun, April 11, 1844. Correspondence of John C. Cal- 
houn, edited by J. Franklin Jameson in American Historical Association 
Report, 1899, "ll, 945-947. This will Iftreafter be referred to simply as 
Calhoun's Correspondence. 

''Same to same, May 30, 1844. Ihid., 961. Calhoun was also informed 
of the encroachments of the Hudson's Bay Company in California. Lar- 
kin to Calhoun, June 20, 1844. MS., State Department. 

Larkin had been appointed consul at Monterey, May 1, 1843. Webster 
to Thompson, May 5. MS., State Department. 



38 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

California.^*' But early in the fall, Calhoun made a further attempt 
to open negotiations for the acquisition of that province in con- 
nection with the annexation of Texas. Duii Green, a close friend, 
was sent to Galveston nominally with the exequatur of consul, but 
in reality as Calhoun's special agent to join with Ben E. Green, 
his son, "in conducting the negotiation for the acquisition of Texas, 
New Mexico, and California." 

Green arrived at Galveston shortly before the second of October,*^ 
but apparently did not tarry long at his supposed destination as 
we find him writing Calhoun on the 28th from Mexico City. 
This communication deserves special mention, not merely because 
it showed the futility of any immediate attempt to secure a cession 
of Mexican territory but because the reason given in this particular 
instance explains very eJEfectually the consistent rejection of sim- 
ilar proposals made by the United States, from that of Poinsett 
in 1825 to the final offer of Slidell in 18'46. 

"I am convinced," wrote Green, "that it is impossible to obtain 
the consent of this Government to the cession to the United States 
of Texas, California or any part of the public domain of Mexico 
whatever." Then followed a long dissertation on Santa Anna's 
hostile policy toward the United States, pursued since 1825 for 
his own selfish interests; a description of the chaotic state into 
which the government had fallen; and certain remarks upon the 
constant factional strife with which the land was cursed. "In 
such a state of things," he continued, 

in the midst of a civil conflict where each party is seeking pre- 
tences to murder and confiscate the property of their opponents, 
and where the principle [is maintained] that it is treason to sell 
any part of the public domain to the United States, it is worse 
than folly to suppose that either party can alienate any part of 
Texas or California.*^ 

^"During the year 1844 a California representative, by name of Casta- 
Bares, was in Mexico pleading for aid for the department, warning the 
government against American designs, and prophesying tlie loss of Cali- 
fornia unless active measures welte taken to prevent its falling into the 
hands of the United States. Bancroft, XXI, 413 et seq. 

"Facts and Suggestions, 85. Green says elsewhere that Calhoun told 
him success in the negotiation would mean a more valuable commerce on 
the Pacific within a few years than on tlie Atlantic. Tyler's Letters and 
Times of the Tylers, III, 174-175. 

'^Memucan Hunt to Calhoun, Oct. 2, 1844. Calhoun Correspondence, 
975. Mention is liere made of Green's consular position. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 39 

Farther along in his despatch, Green again laid emphasis upon 
the fact — ^which Americans, eager for territory and cognizant of 
Mexico's need of funds and the easy virtue of some of her officials, 
were slow to grasp — ^that any party venturing to sell Texas or 
California would surely be overthrown, its leaders shot and their 
property taken over by a rival faction. Out of this difficulty only 
one way lay open to the United States government; and that, 
though it promised all the administration could ask, Green refused 
to specify in writing, reserving his explanation for a personal in- 
terview after visiting Texas. ^^ 

Following Duff Green's departure from Mexico, little concerning 
California occurs in the correspondence that passed between Wilson 
Shannon, the American minister who succeeded Thompson, and 
Calhoun. One important despatch respecting English designs, 
which will be noticed later, was sent early in January, 1845;^'^ 
while on the 16th of the same month Shannon wrote that there 
might be a bare possibility of reopening negotiations with the new 
government of Paredes and Herrera''^ because of their desperate 
need of funds.^- But the breaking off of diplomatic relations, fol- 
lowing the annexation of Texas soon after this, put an effectual 
stop to all attempts at negotiation for California until Slidell 
entered the field under Polk's direction. 

It should be noted, however, in any discussion of the diplomacy 
of this period that it was during Tyler's administration that the 
first hint of Polk's subsequent policy regarding the internal affairs 
of California is to be found. Larkin, after his appointment as 

^'Duff Green to Calhoun, Oct. 28, 1844. lUd., 975-980. It is more than 
probable that Green had reference to the movement he afterwards en- 
deavored to stir up in Texas looking to the revolt of several of the Mexi- 
can provinces, including California. Anson Jones, Republic of Texas, 
412-414; Donelson to Calhoun^ Jan. 27, 1845, Calhoun Correspondence, 
1019-1020. 

*°Green also had something to say in his despatches about England's 
hold on. California. 

"Shannon to Calhoun, Jan. 16, 1845. MS., State Department. Ben 
Green asserted that the Herrera government was favorably inclined to 
cede New Mexico and California to the United States, and that he and 
the United States consul, J. D. Marks, at Matamoras came to Washing- 
ton to acquaint Tyler with the fact and arrange the negotiation. The 
appointment of Slidell as minister, according to Green, brought their 
plans to a standstill (Tylers Letters and Times of the Tylers, III, 
174-177). 

•''Santa Anna's overthrow took place about the middle of January. 



40 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

consul, kept tlie State Department well informed as to events 
in the province, especially regarding immigration, the attitude of 
California oflficials, and the proceedings of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany. In this he was encouraged by the authorities at Wash- 
ington; and, still farther, urged to report anything concerning the 
political condition of California that could "be made subservient 
to or may effect {sic) the interest and well being of oiir gov- 
ernment."^^ It was an enlargement upon this plan, that, as we 
shall see, Polk made use of about one year later. 

^^Larkin to Secretary of State, April 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, 
II, No. 4; same to same, Aug. 18, Ihid., No. 9. Cralle, Acting Secre- 
tary of State, to Larkin, Oct. 25, 1844. Larkin MSS., VI, No. 223. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California. 41 



Chapter III 

FIRST EFFORTS OF THE POLK ADMINISTRATION 

Having traced the course of the Tyler administration with re- 
gard to California, we must now turn to the internal affairs of 
the province and the growth of popular interest throughout the 
country in its concerns. During 1842 no emigration of any im- 
portance took place from the United States.^ But the friends of 
the movement were busy;- and toward the close of the year, Gen- 
eral Almonte, the Mexican minister at Washington, found it neces- 
sary to counteract their representations by an article denying the 
report that California officials extended a ready welcome to for- 
eigners.^ In this, however, he was giving the views of the Mexi- 
can government, and not those of the authorities of the prov- 
ince.* 

Immigration and Commerce. — In 1843 two considerable parties 
reached California under the direction of leaders who, having al- 
ready made the journey, had returned to the western states to 
encourage others of their countrymen to follow their example. 
One of these companies, numbering perhaps forty individuals, 
was led by Lansford W. Hastings and came by way of Oregon.^ 
The other, slightly larger, left Missouri in May under Joseph B. 
Chiles, a member of the Bartleson company of 1841. Divid- 
ing at Fort Hall, part of the emigrants completed their journey 

^Bancroft, XXT. 341. 

^Niles' Register, LXIII. 242; Larkin to James G. Bennett of the New 
York Herald, Feb. 2, 1842. Larkin MSS., II, No. 6. 

^Baltimore American, Dec. 24, 1842, reprinted in Niles' Register, LXIII, 
277. 

*For the order against foreigners issued by the Mexican government, 
see above, The Quarterly, XVIII, 35-36. The Californians opposed no 
obiection or obstacle to the coming of the Americans. Bancroft, XXI, 
380. 

'Bancroft, XXI, 389-392; Hinckley to Larkin, July 20, 1843, notes the 
arrival of forty immigrants of respectable character under Hastings. He 
thought the country would soon be overstocked if the influx continued. 
Larkin MSS., II, No. 24. 



42 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

with Chiles, while the remainder followed Walker over a more 
difficult southern route.® 

The year 1844 saw still further reinforcement of the American 
population in California/ accompanied by increased interest 
throughout the United States. Notice of the repeal of the law 
against foreigners by the Mexican government was published in 
the newspapers;^ the state department was assured that Ameri- 
cans were looked upon with favor in California;^ and numerous 
books and communications setting forth the advantages of the 
province were placed in the hands of American leaders.^" Com- 
mercial relations with the United States showed little change dur- 
ing this period." The year 1843 was one of hard times, and 

"Bancroft, XXI, 393-395. 

''Ibid., 444 et seq., notes two considerable parties — one under Andrew 
Kelsey of thirty-six persons, and the other under Elisha Stevens of nearly 
one hundred. The latter brought the first wagon ever used in a complete 
overland trip. See also Sutter to Larkin, July 7 and Aug. 8; Bidwell to 
Larkin, Dec. 13, 1844; Larkin MSS., II, Nos. 140, 157, 286. 

From this on no attempt is made to follow in detail the arrival of 
emigrant parties, though note is usually made of the more important. 

^ISaies' Register, LXV, 353. 

'Larkin to Secretary of State, Aug. 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, 
Pt. II, No. 4; same to same, Aug. 18, Ihid., No. 9; same to R. J. Walker, 
Aug. 4, Ihid., No. 11. 

"Among these may be mentioned Thomas Jefferson Farnham's Travels 
in Calif orma and Scenes in the Pacific Ocean (New York. 1844) ; Charles 
Wilkes' Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition (Phila- 
delphia. Lea and Blanchard. 1844, 1845) ; L. W. Hastings, Emigranfs 
Guide to Oregon to Oregon and California (Cincinnati. 1845), etc. Most 
of these gave the usual descriptions of the political conditions of Cali- 
fornia, and of its commercial and agricultural advantages. All devote 
considerable space to San Francisco. For the influence exerted in this 
way, especially by Farnham, see Thwaites, Early Western Travels, XXVIII, 
14; and McMaster, History of the United States, VII, 297. Hastings's 
efforts in connection with immigration will be considered later. Wilkes's 
narrative, only a small part of which dealt with California, ran through 
several editions. A somewhat scathing review of the contributions made 
by Wilkes is to be found in the North American Revieiv, XVI, 54-107. 

Larkin also was busy at this time encouraging immigration. Besides 
his despatches to the State Department, already noted, he collected infor- 
mation regarding all arrivals and sent communications to the American 
papers tending to arouse an interest in California. See, for example, 
Larkin to Sutter, April 29, 1844; Larkin, Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 
No. 7; Robinson to Larkin, Sept. 24, 1844; Larkin MSS., II, No. 210. 

"For a general description of trading conditions along the coast, see 
Larkin, Description of California (Commerce). Duties of the principal 
vessels amounted to sums ranging from $5000 to $25,000. A storage 
charge of twelve and a half cents (one real) was made for each large 
bale, and half the amount for wharfage. Tonnage dues were $1.50 per 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California. 43 

tli« trading vessels had difficulty in securing even a fraction of 
their accustomed cargo of hides.^^ Whaling ships in larger num- 
bers^^ continued to use the California ports, especially San Fran- 
cisco, as depots, for reprovisioning and refitting. But until the 
middle of 1844 nothing of importance occurred to break the or- 
dinary routine of trade conditions along the coast. 

In that year, however, certain changes were made in the Cali- > 
fornia tariff laws that benefited one class of American commerce 
and injured another. The practice had become common for ves- 
sels flying the Mexican flag to pay duties at Mazatlan; and thus, 
through the ruling of the Mexican law, to secure free access for 
their cargoes into California. This custom, however, was playing 
sad havoc with the profits of the Boston ships and with the revenues 
of the province, all of which were derived from customs receipts, 
as well. So, in order to protect the threatened provincial treas- 
ury and keep the New England trade, the assembly and governor 
calmly set the Mexican law aside and required all goods, whether 
paying duties at a port of the home government or not, to abide 
by the regulation of the custom house at Monterey;^* while a 

ton. There were no health or quarantine regulations, and no further port 
charges or fees. There were no prohibitions or restrictions as to the 
class of imports, no bounty or navigation acts and no drawbacks. Smug- 
gling was common, and the bribery of California customs officials a recog- 
nized part of the trade. 

The following table of customs receipts shows pretty clearly the relative 
volume of trade from 1839 to 1845: 

1839 $ 85,613 

1840 72,308 

1841 101,150 

1842 73,729 

1843 52,000 

1844 78,739 

1845 138,360 

Larkin to Secretary of State, Dec. 31, 1845. Larkin, Official Corre- 
spondence, Pt. II, No. 32. 

"There were only 03,000 hides available for sixteen vessels. Bancroft 
XXI, 339. 

"Davis, Sixty Years in California (214-215) says that as many as thirty 
or forty whaling vessels were in the port of San Francisco at one time 
during 1843, 1844, and 1845. See also Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 24, 1844. 
MS., State Department; same to same, Dec. 12 — Thinks there will be six 
hundred American vessels on northwest coast within three years. Official 
Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 13. 

'*The Californians claimed they did this because the Mazatlan officials 
with the hope of lining their own pockets, allowed a lower rate of duty 
than the law specified, and that a receipt for customs duties was fre- 
quently given when only a bribe had been paid by the ship owner or captain. 



44 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

further disregard for the national authority was shown, as indeed 
it long had been, by permitting the introduction of various com- 
modities prohibited by Mexican law, upon the payment of local 
duties.^" 

The second alteration in the regulations governing trade along 
the coast, while of advantage to the Boston merchants, worked no 
slight temporary hardship upon the whaling vessels touching at 
California ports. This was a prohibition upon the long estab- 
lished practice of trading a limited amount of goods for needed 
supplies ;^^ and was doubtless justified, as the privilege had been 
greatly abused, both to the detriment of the regular trade and the 
loss of revenue receipts. ^'^ At least one instance, however, is re- 
corded where, if the captain's complaint be true, the new edict 
caused much inconvenience if not actual suffering.^® The sub- 
ject was reported by Larkin to the state department and was con- 
sidered of sufficient importance to receive the notice of the Presi- 
dent.^® But, as a matter of fact, the new law seems to have had 
only a short existence; and whalers found little difficulty, after 
the first few months, in securing their share of the California 
trade.20 

Various other occurrences during their period that had some 
bearing upon the American interests were the arrival of John C. 
Fremont at Sutter^s Fort early in the spring of 1844 on his 
second exploring expedition ;^^ the return of Lansford W. Hast- 
ings to the United States to encourage further emigration to Cali- 

"Larkin to Secretary of State, Sept. 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, 
Pt. II, No. 10; same to same, Oct. 16; Bancroft, XXI, 376-377. 

"Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 24, 1844. MS., State Department; same to 
United States Minister in Mexico, Aug. 14, 1844. Ibid. 

"Bancroft, XXI, 376. 

^^Thos. A. Norton, captain of the Clias. W. Morgan, to Consul Larkin, 
Aug. 12, 1844 — Has just put into port after a cruise of thirty-four months. 
Men down with scurvy — custom of all ports in Pacific to allow Avhalers 
to sell goods and reprovision — will work a great hardship if denied him 
at San Francisco (Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II;, No. 13). Larkin 
sent this letter to Governor Micheltorena. 

"Calhoun to Larkin, Dec. 28, 1844. lUd., No. 303. It was brought by 
the president in turn to the attention of Congress. 

^Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 19, 1844. MS., State Department; same to 
Henry Lindsey, Editor of the New Bedford Whaleman's Shipping List, 
Dec. 11. Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 11. 

"Sutter to Larkin, March 28, 1844. Larkin MSS., II, No. 73. Fremont 
reached New Helvetia March 6. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 45 

fornia, in order to bring about its separation from Mexico; and 
the revolt of the native Californians against the Mexican gov- 
ernor, Micheltorena. As all of these incidents receive subsequent 
mention they need not detain us here, and we shall pass on to a 
consideration of Polk's diplomatic attempts to secure the province. 

Announcement of Folk's Policy. — When Polk came into office 
on the 4th of March, 1845, the attention of the American people, 
as has been shown, had already turned toward California. ^^ Two 
presidents, Jackson and Tyler, had made earnest efforts to pur- 
chase it from Mexico, in the name of the United States. It is 
not surprising, then, to find the annexation of this province figur- 
ing as one of the four important measures which the new Presi- 
dent, even before his inauguration, had set his heart upon carry- 
ing into effect.^^ Polk's intentions, moreover, were not long kept 
to himself. Official announcement of his desire to acquire Cali- 
fornia was made to the cabinet on September 16;-* and the day 
following, the Washington correspondent of the ISTew Orleans 
Picayune wrote: "It is predicted that Mr. Polk's administration 
will be signalized by the settlement of the Oregon question satis- 
factory to the American people; by the peaceful acquisition of the 
Californias, and by the adjustment of all our claims upon 
Mexico."25 

For the accomplishment of this plan of annexation, four possi- 
ble methods presented themselves — (1) By direct purchase from 
Mexico; (2) by revolt of the Californians, aided by resident 
Americans, against Mexico, and a request for admission into the 
United States; (3) by quiet delay, until a stimulated emigra- 
tion from this country should overrun the province and declare 
its independence, even against the wishes of the Californians; (4) 

"It was a singular coincidence, if nothing more, that caused the editor 
of the New York Journal of Commerce to publish in his paper of March 5, 
directly beneath Polk's inaugural address, an article headed, "California 
Coming." 

"The remaining three were the settlement of the Oregon boundary line, 
a reduction of the tariff, and the establishment of a subtreasury. See 
Edward G. Bourne, Essays in Historical Criticism (Yale bicentennial pub- 
lications, II), 229; and various other authorities. 

"!^7^e Diary of James K. Polk, edited by Milo M. Quaife, Chicago His- 
torical Society's Collections, Vol. VI (Chicago. A. C. McClurg & Co. 
1910), I, 34. 

^New Orleans Daily Picayune, Sept. 27, 1845. 



46 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

by forcible seizure of the territory in case of an outbreak of war, 
for whatever cause, with Mexico. 

Polk did not lose much time after his accession to office in put- 
ting the first of these methods to a practical test. On March 6, 
General Almonte, the Mexican minister, demanded his passports 
because of the passage of the joint resolution for the admission of 
Texas; while Wilson Shannon, much to the regret of his own 
government, assumed the responsibility of breaking off diplomatic 
relations with Mexico because of his treatment at the hands of 
the minister of foreign affairs.-" 

Ajypointment of Parrott. — Almonte left New York on April 3, 
and on the same ship went Polk's confidential agent, William S. 
Parrott, for the purpose of securing Mexico's consent to the recep- 
tion of a minister from the United States.^^ The choice of Par- 
Tott for this mission was ill-advised.^^ He had been a resident of 
Mexico for some years but apparently had little else to recommend 
him. On the contrary his record there had been anything but 
favorable. As one of the creditors against the Mexican govern- 
ment in 1842, he had put in a claim that Thompson, his own 
countryman, had characterized as "exaggerated to a disgusting 
degree."^^ His business dealings had also brought him into some 
disrepute even with men of his own nationality.^" Furthermore, 
though this cannot be held wholly to his account, he was sus- 
pected of bringing with him authority to spend a million dollars 
in bribing Mexican officials.^^ And altogether he was a person 
"very much disliked in the southern Eepublic.^^ 

In spite of this handicap, however, and the more serious one 

^^The Works of James Buchanan (collected and edited by John Bassett 
Moore. Philadelphia and London. J. B. Lippincott Company. 1909), 
VI, 134-135. 

"Reeves, American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 269. For the full 
text of Parrott's instructions see Buchanan, Works, VI, 132-134. 

''^Reeves, 269. 

=^Thompson to Webster, Nov. 30, 1842. MS., State Department. 

""Larkin-Parrott Correspondence. Larkin MSS., passim. 

»^Black to Buchanan, July 3, 1845. MS., State Department. 

^^Black to Slidell, Dec. 25, 1845 — "The Mexican ministry positively re- 
fuse to receive Parrott as Secretary of Legation." MS., State Depart- 
ment. 

Polk's choice of confidential agent would have been much more suitable 
had he selected either Black, the American consul at Mexico City, or 
Dimond, who filled a like position at Vera Cruz. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 47 

that the purpose of his coming was openly proclaimed in Mex- 
ico,^^ Parrott managed after a fashion to fulfill his mission. On 
August 26, he wrote Buchanan that an envoy of the United States 
with proper abilities might "with comparative ease settle over a 
breakfast the most important national question," and that such a 
commissioner was almost daily expected.^* As this opinion was 
confirmed by later dispatches from Dimond and Black,^^ the . 
American consuls, the President and his cabinet resolved to send 
John Slidell of Louisiana secretly to Mexico, as the official repre- 
sentative of this Government. 

Failure of SlidelVs Mission. — The real purpose of Slidell's ap- 
pointment, as announced at this time by Polk, was the purchase 
of Upper California and New Mexico. These, the President 
thought, might be obtained for fifteen or twenty millions of dol- 
lars; but he was willing to give twice the latter amount, if neces- 
sary. Indeed, Polk considered the worth of the territory involved, 
to the United States, as almost beyond reckoning in mere finan- 
cial terms. With this appraisement the cabinet unanimously 
agreed."^ 

The day following the decision to attempt the reopening of 
diplomatic intercourse with Mexico, however, less reassuring re- 
ports from that country caused a temporary stay in the proceed- 
ings. And it was deemed best to delay Slidell's departure until 
the receipt of official assurance from the Mexican government, or 
at least of very definite information from the administration's 
agents, regarding his reception.^^ Black, accordingly, was instructed 
to secure a definite pledge from those in authority that an Ameri- 
can minister, if sent, should not be rejected, while Slidell was told 

'^Reeves, 270. 

^Parrott to Buchanan, Aug. 26. MS., State Department; also Reeves, 
271. 

»=Polk, Biarrj, I, 34. 

'»/6id., I. 34-35. 

The line desired by Polk ran up the Rio Grande to El Paso and thence 
west to the Pacific' For the instructions to Slidell, however, see below, 
p. 129. If Jackson's offer, as Adams said, was only $500,000 for the 
more valuable part of this territory but ten years before, one is tempted 
to think the present day promoters of California real estate are not with- 
out historical example for their claims. 

"Ihid., 35-36, entry for Sept. 17. 



48 Ea/rly Sentiment for Annexation of Calif ornia 

of his selection for the mission and instrneted to hold himself 
ready for secret departure at a moment's notice.^^ 

On November 6 despatches were received through Commodore 
Connor, commanding the United States Squadron in the Gulf 
of Mexico, that Mexico was ready to renew friendly relations and 
"receive a Minister from the U. States."^^ The President and 
secretary of state, therefore, decided to send Slidell at once, and 
agreed upon the general character of his instructions, which the 
latter drafted in rough form for cabinet discussion.**' Two days 
later, Parrott arrived from Mexico with the original note of the 
secretary of foreign affairs, agreeing to the reception of a diplo- 
matic agent from the United States; and also with assurances 
that the question of boundaries could be adjusted with Mexico in 
a satisfactory manner.*^ That same night a commission as "Envoy 
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Mexico," and offi- 
cial instructions were forwarded by special bearer to Slidell at 
Pensacola.*^ 

These instructions, which had been agreed to unanimously by 
the cabinet, were of considerable length and, except as they relate 
to California, need not detain us here.*^ In regard to that terri- 
tory, however, Buchanan wrote : "There is another subject of vast 
importance to the United States, which will demand your particu- 
lar attention,"** . . . 

The government of California is now but nominally dependent 
on Mexico; and it is more than doubtful whether her authority 
will ever be reinstated. Under these circumstances, it is the de- 

^Ihid.: also Buchanan to Black, Sept. 17, Buchanan, Works, VI, 260- 
261. Slidell was dubious as to his reception in Mexico, but prepared to 
leave whenever word should reach him from Washington. Slidell to 
Buchanan, Sept. 25, Ibid., 264-265. 

'"Polk, Diary, I, 91. The quotation is important owing to the subse- 
quent rejection of Slidell because of the wording of his commission. It is 
evident that Polk thought the Mexican government, as here stated, had 
agreed to receive him as minister. But see Tyler's, Tylers, III, 176-177. 

^''Polk, Diary, I, 91-92, A' partial draft of these had already been pre- 
pared. Ibid; also entry for Sept. 22. 

y^id., 93. 

*^Ibid. 

^'"His instructions were chiefly verbal." Schouler, History of the Umted 
States, V, 525. On the contrary, they were carefully written out and very 
explicit, filling twelve pages in printed form, of Buchanan's Works. 

"For this omission, see Chapter V. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 49 

sire of the President that you shall use your best efforts to obtain 
a cession of that Province from Mexico to the United States. 
. . . Money would be no object when compared with the value 
of this acquisition. . . . The President would not hesitate to 
give, in addition to the assumption of the just claims of our citi- 
zens on Mexico, twenty-five millions of dollars for the cession.^^ 

This offer of twenty-five millions, continued the instructions, 
was to be made for a line extending west from the southern 
boundary of New Mexico; or for any line that should include 
Monterey within the territory ceded to the United States. If this 
could not be obtained twenty millions were to be offered for a 
boundary "commencing at any point on the western line of New 
Mexico, and running due West to the Pacific, so as to include 
the bay and harbor of San Francisco." Elsewhere the impor- 
tance attached to the acquisition of San Francisco by the admin- 
istration was similarly shown. "The possession of the Bay and 
harbor of San Francisco," Slidell had been told, "is all important 
to the United States. The advantages to us of its acquisition are 
so striking that it would be a waste of time to enumerate them 
here." It is well to remember this in connection with the ques- 
tion of the influence of slavery upon Polk's determination to pos- 
sess California. 

The difficulties Slidell met with in Mexico and his final re- 
jection by the Paredes government are too well known to require 
mention at this time.*® His despatches to the state department 
relating to California, also, for the most part belong to a subse- 
quent discussion. It should be noted, however, that a certain 
phase of the administration's policy received considerable em- 
phasis at this time. On December 17, Buchanan sent a communi- 
cation to Slidell again urging upon him the importance of secur- 
ing the cession of the California ten-itory specified in his instruc- 

^"For complete instructions, see Buchanan, Works, VI, 294-306. The 
part relating to California is on pp. 304-306. 

^"For Slidell's course in Mexico, see Reeves, 282-287; Schnuler. V, 525- 
526; Jay, Mexican War, 211-220 (an account biased as usual) ; Rives, The 
United States and Mexico, II, 53-80 (perhaps the best account.) Slidell's 
desire to hasten his recognition by the Mexican government can be fairly 
accounted for on two grounds — his wish to be recognized by the Herrera 
administration before it should be turned out of office; and the urging of 
the president, who desired to end the uncertain condition of affairs with 
Mexico before the adjournment of Congress. Buchanan, Works, VI, 312. 



50 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

tions, as it "would secure incalculable advantages" to the United 
States. At the same time he was authorized to make the pay- 
ment of six millions of dollars, cash, upon the exchange of treaty 
ratifications.*'^ 

In February, after Slidell had left Mexico City, there seemed 
to be some prospect of making good use of this cash payment 
plan because of the pressing financial needs of the new govern- 
ment. "Aware that financial embarrassments alone can induce 
those in power to enter upon negotiations with the United States," 
wrote Slidell on the 6th, "I took care before leaving the Capital 
to convey through a person having confidential relations with the 
President a hint that those embarrassments might be relieved if 
satisfactory arrangements for boundary should be made."** 

To this Buchanan replied that the United States would readily 
come to the assistance of Paredes, if he should bring ahout a satis- 
factory settlement of the boundary question ; and that funds would 
be available immediately for the Mexican President upon the rati- 
fication of the treaty by his government.*^ A few days later Polk 
took preliminary steps to have such funds as might be necessary 
foT the carrying out of this purpose placed at his disposal by con- 
fidentially arranging with C. J. Ingersoll, chairman of the house 
committee on foreign affairs, and with Eepresentative Cullom of 
Tennessee to introduce a bill authorizing a million dollars for this 
object, if at any time such method of procedure should be deemed 
advisable.^^ Here, then, we have the beginning of a policy the 
administration was to follow pretty consistently throughout the 
whole course of the Mexican War. It was embodied, it is scarcely 
necessary to remark, in the "two million" and "three million" bills 
of Wilmot Proviso fame; and, indirectly, in the return of Santa 
Anna. 

But before this despatch reached Slidell, he was on his way 
home, thoroughly disgusted and disgruntled with the tortuous 
course of Mexican diplomacy. Polk had failed in his attempt to 

^^Buehanan to Slidell, Ibid., 345; see also Polk, Diary, I, 125. 

*'Slidell to Buchanan, Feb. 6, 1846. MS., State Department. 

"Buchanan to Slidell, March 12. Buchanan, Works, VI, 403. 

^"Polk, Diary, I, 303, entry for March 25. Polk had probably already 
interviewed Ingersoll on the subject a week previously. Ibid.; and entry 
for March 18, page 282. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 51 

purchase California as Jackson and Tyler had failed before him, 
and for precisely the same reason, namely, the fear of the ruling 
faction in Mexico that any alienation of territory would be fol- 
lowed by a revolution before which they would go down in ruin.^^ 

Demoralized situation in California. — Though nothing had come 
of Slidell's attempt to secure California by negotiation, Polk's 
line of effort, as has been said, was by no means limited to this 
one method. Even while his minister was seeking to obtain rec- 
ognition from the Mexican government, the President was set- 
ting another agency at work to bring about the desired acquisi- 
tion. But before considering what may be called Polk's internal 
policy regarding California, we must devote some space to the con- 
ditions existing there, especially with respect to the feeling of the 
inhabitants toward Mexico, and the significance of American im- 
migration. 

At the time Polk came into office, affairs were in such a state 
in California that it was generally recognized that the native lead- 
ers would soon throw off allegiance to Mexico and attempt an in- 
dependent government or seek the protection of some more power- 
ful nation, either the United States, England, or France. The 
hold of Mexico was miserably weak and ineffective. Internal dis- 
cords and national debility rendered the task of preserving her 
own autonomy sufficiently difficult, and made the just government 
or adequate protection of so distant a province impossible. Upon 
this point there is universal agreement among writers. Sir George 
Simpson, describing California as it was in 1842, has given an un- 
exaggerated picture of the lack of intercourse between the parent 
government and her political offspring. 

"From what has been said," he writes near the close of his book, 

It will not appear strange that the intercourse between California 
and Mexico has never been active. . . . Mexico has more in- 
tercourse with China than with California. . . . Advices are 
not received in Mexico from Monterey above once or twice in a 
year. The last deputy elected by California to the Mexican Con- 

"President Herrera asserted that the mere willingness to listen to Sli- 
dell's propositions had served as sufficient pretext for inciting the revo- 
lution that caused his overthrow. See a letter from Herrera, cited by 
Cass in the senate, on March 27, 1848. Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 1 sess., 
page 493. 



52 Earltj Sentiment for Annexation of California 

gress informed me that di^ring the two years he served, he only 
received two letters from California while in Mexico. ®- 

Wilkes, too, on his voyage of exploration, though ''prepared for 
anarchy and confusion" was surprised to find "a total absence of 
all government in California and even its form and ceremonies 
thrown aside/^^^ 

Nor was the military oversight exercised by Mexico any more 
efficient than the political. The fort at Monterey, the capital, 
and port of entry for the whole province, had not sufficient powder 
to salute the vessel upon which Simpson was a passenger, but had 
to borrow from the ship itself for the purpose.^* Guarding the 
long inland reaches of San Francisco Bay, "where all the navies 
of the world might ride in safety," and through whose gates men 
thought the commerce of the east would shortly pass, Wilkes found 
a garrison of a single officer, in charge of a single barefooted pri- 
vate, and the former was absent when Wilkes arrived.^^ The naval 
force consisted of but one vessel. That mounted no gun of any 
kind, and was so poorly manned that it could not make progress 
beating against the wind.^® 

Further citations might be made, almost ad lihitum, to show 
the complete neglect of the civil and military needs of California 
by the home government. But these would be useless. The local 
officials, continually appealing for aid, were met with nothing more 
substantial than promises, exhortations to defend the country them- 
selves from threatened dangers; or, as we shall see presently, with 
that which was worse than even this utter lack of assistance.^'^ 

Revolution against Micheltorena. — Under such circumstances it 
is not surprising to find the Californians setting aside Mexican 

"^-Sir George Simpson, 'Narrative of a voyage around the world during 
the years 18^1 and 1842. (London. 1847), I, 298-299. Simpson was 
governor of the Hudson's Bay Company. 

='Wilkes, Narrative, V. 163. 

''^Simpson, Narrative, I, 190. 

^^Wilkes, Narrative, V, 152. 

"Simpson, Narrative, I, 197. 

"For example: Commandancia General to Ministro de Guerra y Marina, 
April 25, 1840 (Vallejo, Documentos, IX, No. 124) ; Vallejo to Ministro 
de Guerra, May 18, 1841 (Ibid., No. 147) ; Alvarado to Vallejo, Nov. 30, 
1841 {Ihid., No. 369) ; Bustamente to Vallejo, April 25, 1840— Government 
trusts in his ability to defend the province from invasion. Civil war in 
Mexico prevents aid being sent immediately {Ibid., No. 122). 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 53 

laws whenever it suited their fancy, and almost as frequently de- 
posing the governor sent out by the supreme government. ^^ The 
revolution of 1836, resulting in the overthrow of Gutierrez, has 
already been mentioned. But this was only one of a numerous 
series. One writer has remarked that between 1831 and 1841, the 
government of California changed hands on an average of once a 
year; while the province not infrequently was "blessed with two 
governors at a time and once with triplets."^'' 

The period between 1841 and the occupation of Monterey by 
Commodore Sloat, was scarcely less free than the decade just men- 
tioned from civil disturbances. In 1842, General Micheltorena 
was sent from Mexico as governor, with an "army" for the de- 
fense of the province. The army consisted of some two or three 
hundred choice spirits picked, for the most part, from the na- 
tional jails, and was a cause of constant bitterness and annoyance, 
even of actual fear, to the Califomians.®" 

"Not one individual among them," said Eobinson, who was 
present in California when the battalion arrived, "possessed a 
jacket or pantaloons ; but naked and like savage Indians, they con- 
cealed their nudity with dirty, miserable blankets."^^ And what 
was even worse, he adds, a drill by daylight was usually followed 
by thieving expeditions at night. So that the general feeling in 
California over this latest acquisition from Mexico was similar to 
that of a former Governor of the province, who wrote respecting 
the colonists sent by Spain to aid in the settlement of the coun- 
try, that, to take a charitable view of the subject, their absence 

^Dana noted the wretched policy pursued by Mexico in the character 
of men she sent out as officials. "The administradores," he wrote, "are 
strangers sent from Mexico, having no interest in the country ; not iden- 
tified in any way with their charge, and for the most part, men of des- 
perate fortunes — broken down politicians and soldiers, — whose only object 
is to retrieve their condition as soon as possible. Tico Years before the 
Mast, 195. 

^'J. M. Guinn, Capture of Monterey in Historical Society of Southern 
California, Publications, III, 70. 

One is reminded by this of Houston's declaration that Mexico had seen 
three revolutions in twelve months, and Benton's interjection, "She has 
had seventeen in twenty-five years." Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 sess., 459. 

'"Larkin to Secretary of State, Sept. 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, 
Pt. II, No. 10. Jones to Larkin, Oct. 22, 1842 — Thinks Mexico is going 
to make California the Botany Bay of America. Larkin MSS., I, No. 354. 
See also Nos. 304-367, for further discussion. 

"Robinson, Life in California, 207. 



54 Early Sentim&nt for Annexation of California 

"for a couple of centuries, at a distance of a million of leagues 
would prove beneficial to the province and redound to the service 
of God and the glory of the king."*^ 

The presence of Micheltorena's thieving soldiers and the gen- 
eral character of his rule soon furnished the California leaders, 
Castro and Alvarado, an excuse for revolt. The first outbreak oc- 
curred in N^ovember, 1844; and on December 1st, Micheltorena 
signed a treaty binding himself to ship his undesirable followers 
out of the country within three months. The agreement, how- 
ever, was not kept, and the Californians again took up arms. 
With the details of this revolution we have no concern, except to 
note the rather curious fact that of the foreigner residents who 
took any part at all in it, some joined with Micheltorena, and 
some with Castro and Alvarado. In the single battle of the cam- 
paign, however, they did no actual fighting on either side, as the 
list of casualties for the whole day's encounter — two horses killed 
by the one force and a mule wounded by the other — fully testifies.®^ 

After this slaughter, Micheltorena was ready to capitulate, and 
in March, 1845, left California with the most of his ragged sol- 
diery.^'* Although there were rumors at the time that this revolt 
was aimed to bring about separation from Mexico, these probably 
contained little truth. The Californians desired freedom in local 
affairs ; and many of them cherished no great love for Mexico ; but 
they hesitated to abrogate her authority entirely, not feeling strong 
enough to stand alone and fearing lest the protection afforded by 
a stronger power might prove more of a calamity than the neglect 
of Mexico.^^ In the northern part of the province, nevertheless, 
men of influence were driven by the desperate condition of affairs 
into recognizing the necessity of some radical change, either along 

"Blackmar, Spanish Colonisation in the Southwest in Johns Hopkins 
University Studies, VIII, 183. 

°'For complete description, see Bancroft, XXI, 455-517. 

"I. C. Jones to Larkin, Feb. 26, 1845. Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 37. _ 

Upon his arrival in Mexico, Micheltorena represented his expulsion as 
an act for which Americans were largely responsible. Bancroft, XXI. 513. 
This aroused considerable bitterness against the United States. Shannon 
to Calhoun, April 6, 1845. MS., State Department. 

"^Bidwell {California. 139), speaks of the "anomalous position" of the 
Californians, "as enemies to the United States as Mexicans, enemies to 
Mexico as regarded their local government, afraid of the former, not able 
to rely upon the latter, and not strong enough in themselves for inde- 
pendence." 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 55 

the lines of complete independence or of coming nnder the pro- 
tection of a more stable government than that of Mexico. 

This feeling was greatly increased by the internal discord that 
prevailed even after the departure of the Mexican governor. Pio 
Pico, one of the southern leaders against Micheltorena., was chosen 
by vote of the assembly to take his place; while Jose Castro held 
the office of comandante general. Between these two, the latter 
representing the party of the north, the former the party of the 
south, peace was destined to be short lived. The removal of the 
capital from Monterey to Los Angeles, and the resultant separa- 
tion of the civil offices by a distance of more than four hundred 
miles from the military headquarters, custom house, and treas- 
ury, made harmony among the native authorities still more "un- 
likely. 

During the summer of 1845 various dissensions arose. Civil 
war seemed imminent, and especially to foreign residents and Cali- 
fornians with property at stake the outlook was most discourag- 
jjjg_66 <"Phe country never was in a more disorderly, miserable 
condition than at the present moment," wrote a friend to Alfred 
Eobinson, who was then in New York, "we have no government. 
Pio Pico who was nominally governor has been arrested and im- 
prisoned. The people at the north, as usual, are opposed to those 
of the south, and will be satisfied by none other than Alvarado for 
chief magistrate."*'^ 

Such disorganization and political uncertainty, together with 
the lax control exercised by Mexico, and the actual hostility to her 
interference in local affairs, had a three-fold result. Many of the 
Californians became reconciled to exchanging their allegiance to 
Mexico for any form of government that furnished protection and 
peace; it became generally recognized by those outside of Cali- 
fornia that the time was near for some such change to take place; 
and, finally, Polk was led to take active measures to bring the 
separation, when it came, to good account for the United States. 

""Jones-Larkin correspondence during: this period (Larkin MSS.) ; Juan 
B. Alvarado, Historia de California (MSS., Bancroft Collection), IT, 130- 
131; Bancroft, XXI, 518-543; lUd., XXII, 30 et seq. Prefect Manuel 
Castro to Andres Castillero, Dec. 10, 1845, concerning measures to pre- 
vent civil war. Castro, Documentos, J, No. 238. 

"'Robinson, Life in California, 213-214. 



56 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 



Chapter IV 

EVENTS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE OUTBREAK OF THE MEXICAN 

WAR 

As the political conditions in California were favorable to the 
American interests during the opening months of Polk's admin- 
istration, so also was the influx of immigration from across the 
mountains. From the chance and temporary bands of hunters 
who followed Jedediah Smith and the Patties, this movement had 
grown in 1844 to the organized companies of Bartleson and Kel- 
sey. A year later the tide had come to a full head and the an- 
nual arrivals were numbered by the hundreds. 

Fremont's report. — Then, as now, California had her publicity 
agents whose duty it was to attract settlers. By order of the gov- 
ernment, Fremont, whose second exploring expedition^ had led him 
across the Sierras,^ published a report of his wanderings during the 
first part of 1845. His book was immediately seized upon by a 
public hungering for news of the regions west of the Eoclry 
Mountains.'^ Written in a terse and interesting style, it at once 
brought its author into prominence and drew the attention of hun- 
dreds of readers to the country of which he wrote. 

Though only a portion of the complete report dealt with Cali- 
forniai,* no other part was equal to this in graphic description. 

'Fremont's first expedition had taken place in 1842 but had gone no 
farther than the South Pass and Fremont's Peak in the Rocky Mountains. 

''Report of the Exploring Expedition in the year 1842 and to Oregon and 
North California in the years ISIfS-^Jf, by Brevet Capt. J. 0. Fremont 
. . . printed by order of the House of Representatives (Washington, 
Blair, and Reeves, 1845), 228-229; Larkin to the State Department, April 
12, 1844, enclosing a letter from Sutter. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 
No. 3. 

^The report ran throvigh four editions within two years. It is interest- 
ing to note that one of Fremont's chief objects was to discover whether or 
not the mythical Buenaventura River flowed from the basin east of the 
Rocky Mountains into the Pacific, thus opening up a waterway for the 
western outlet of the Mississippi Valley and a transcontinental route for 
the Chinese trade. Because no such river was found to exist he placed 
much more importance on obtaining the Columbia for the United States. 
Report, 255-256. 

*The description of Fremont's passage of the Sierras and his stay in 
California occupies pages 229-256 of the Report. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 57 

After a month of constant battle with the snows and starvation 
of the mountains,^ Fremont and his party had reached the valley 
of the Sacramento at a time of the year when it was to be seen 
at its best. The contrast between the life and death struggle in 
the Sierras and this land of grass and flowers, well watered and 
timbered, full of game, and with the same "deep-blue sky and 
sunny climate of Smyrna and Palermo," was most dramatic in 
its appeal to the imagination.^ One does not wonder that visitors, 
eager to hear more of this new land, so crowded upon the Ameri- 
can explorer that he was compelled to secure a separate building 
for his workshop;^ while Webster, still the friend of annexation, 
invited him to dine and "talk about California."'^ 

Magazine and. newspaper activities. — But Fremont was only one 
of a numerous band of writers who sang the praises of California, 
and preached, either directly or indirectly, its acquisition during 
this period. Alfred Eobinson (whose book has already been 
quoted in these pages) published his Life in California, during 
the early part of 1846. The author had been for many years a 
resident of the country of which he wrote, as agent for the large 
Boston firm of Bryant and Sturgis, and his work at once found 
wide popularity. Its influence upon the public — and the same 
may be said of most of the contemporaneous writings of a sim- 
ilar nature — is shown by the following extract from a review of 
that day in Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, which also gives us pretty 
accurately the spirit of the time regarding California. 

°Two men went temporarily insane; half their mules were killed for 
food. Report, 229-244. Sutter wrote to Larkin, March 28, 1844, ". . . 
for a month . . . the company had subsisted entirely on horse or 
mule flesh — the starvation and fatigue they had endured rendered them 
truly deplorable objects." Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 3. The 
passage of the mountains occupied' nearly a month. The party reached 
Sutter's March 6th. 

«Fr§mont's description of California cannot be given by separate quota- 
tions. The whole of it must be read to be appreciated. One sentence, 
written after his departure, may be cited merely as an example. "One 
might travel the world over," he wrote, "without finding a valley more 
fresh and verdant — more floral and sylvan — more alive with birds and 
animals — more bounteously watered — than we had left in the San Joaquin." 
Report, 256. 

■John Charles Fremont, Memoirs of My Life (Chicago and New York. 
Bedford, Clarke and Company, 1887), I, 413. 

^lUd., 420. 



58 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

"When we reflect," said the writer, after speaking of the im- 
portance of California to the United States, 

that this superb region is adequate to the sustaining of twenty 
millions of people; has for several hundred years been in the pos- 
session of an indolent and limited population, incapahle from 
their character of appreciating its resources — that no improvement 
can be expected under its present control, we cannot but hope that 
thousands of our fellow countrymen will pour in and accelerate 
the happy period (which the work before us assures us cannot be 
distant) when Alta California will become part and parcel of our 
great confederation; and the cry of Oregon is only a precursor to 
the actual settlement of this more southern, more beautiful and 
far more valuable region.^ 

But California was not compelled to rely altogether upon such 
formal publications, as we have mentioned, for publicity. Ameri- 
cans residing there wrote constantly to friends at home or to the 
newspapers of "the States" in such a vein as was best calculated 
to attract the attention of future emigrants.^'* Emphasis in these 
communications, as usual, was laid upon the advantages of Cali- 
fornia from commercial and agricultural standpoints, San Fran- 
cisco, especially, being held up as a necessary possession for the 
welfare of the United States. And, in addition, assurances were 
given that nothing stood in the way of those desiring to settle in 
the new region, either in the nature of passports, or of difficulties 
in securing land. 

"A foreigner," said an authoritative article in the New York 
Sun, "can become a citizen of California by obtaining two signa- 
tures to his petition. He then possesses the right to take up 
vacant land, and may secure as much as eleven square leagues 
upon the payment of $36 in fees. Many grants held by such 
owners are 33 miles long and 3 miles wide."" "The fertile 
plains of Oregon and California," said another communication to 
the same paper, "are resounding with the busy hum of industry; 
all around us are the germs of empire, prosperity and wealth. 
Those who would reap a harvest should come out young, secure 
their lands, and in ten years they will have their fortunes."^^ 

'Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, April, 1846, 350-353. 

"Larkin, John Marsh, and Hastings were especially active in this respect. 
"Larkin to N. Y. Sun, May 28, 1845. Larkin MSS., Ill, 168. 
"N. Y. Sun, Oct. (?), 1845; quoted in the Washington Daily Union, 
Oct. 11. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 59 

These articles descriptive of California and urging its annexa- 
tion to the United States, were not confined to the papers of any 
one locality or party. The New York Journal of Commerce of 
March 5, contained an article entitled, "California Coming," 
which declared the advantages to be gained from an acquisition 
of that territory would prove as great as those derived from the 
annexation of Texas and asserted that throughout the country 
there was general agreement as to the advisability of securing it.^^ 
"Information in regard to this favored portion of the globe," said 
the New Orleans Courier, in referring to California, "is eagerly 
sought after by our citizens as it is destined ere long to be an- 
nexed to the United States.^* And even the American Review, 
the stanch organ, of the Whigs, in a long and carefully written 
article urged the importance of securing California for the com- 
mercial and agricultural advantages that would thereby result to 
this government; and because of the inability of Mexico to make 
use of its resources.^^ 

The New York papers, especially the Sun, Herald, and Journal 
of Commerce, were among the most active of the publications in 
keeping California before the public eye. They took pains to 
print any article coming within their notice regarding it; and, in 
addition, had a regular correspondent living in Monterey in the 
person of Thomas 0. Larkin.^*' Indeed, it may be said without 
fear of exaggeration, that most of the communications published 
in these three papers on the subject of California originated with 
Larkin. And, owing to the custom of "exchange" prevalent at 

"New York Journal ojf Commerce, March 5, 1845; copied also in Charles- 
ton Mercury, ]\Iareh 10. 

"Quoted in Niles' Register, LXVIII, 162. 

^^American Review, Jan., 1846; see also comment upon this in Richmond 
Enquirer, Jan. 26. 

"Larkin to Journal of Commerce, July 31. 1845 (Larkin MSS., Ill, 
No. 235). Samv^ to James G. Bennett of " the New York Herald. Mav 26, 
1846 {Ibid., IV, No. 129); N. Y. Herald to Larkin, Oct. 14, 1845 {Ibid., 
No. 306) ; Hudson [for Bennett] to Childs [Larkin's brother-in-law in 
Washington], Dec. 5, 1846 — "When you write to Mr. Larkin . . . 
please say . . . that so far as we can we will take care of California. 
We have always been in favor of the acquisition of that territory" {Ibid., 
No. 337) ; see also Polk's Diary, 1, 126-127. Larkin's communications 
were likewise sent to the Boston Daily Advertiser. 



60 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

the time, most of these found space in other journals throughout 
the country.^'' 

Proposed railroad to California. — The interest of the Sum, in 
this subject was rather strikingly shown by a letter from one of 
its editors, A. E. Beach, to his correspondent mentioned above. 
After thanking Larkin for the valuable information already fur- 
nished. Beach continued : 

News from your quarter is looked for with deep interest here. 
Just now there are strong opinions that California will be joined 
to the United States. . . . We flatter ourselves that the New 
York Bun, will, if such a thing be possible, cause the measure to 
be carried into execution. Texas, owing almost entirely to the in- 
fluence of this paper, has been annexed, and now, our editors say, 
"Why not California?" A letter which you wrote us some time 
since describing Monterey and harbor . . . seemed to have 
acted strongly on the public mind, and owing to what we have 
since said, they now look with a longing eye toward California. 
We have urged the purchase of it and that the contemplated rail- 
road to Oregon should be turned to Monterey. 

We wish, if convenient, you would give us your opinion of hav- 
ing a E. E. to Monterey and tell us where would be the best point 
to have it terminate. 

You may judge what influence we have, from the fact that 
since we have spoken of Monterey as the terminus several persons 
are on the eve of starting for that place to purchase lands. ^^ 

This railroad project mentioned by Beach was at that time a 
subject of considerable speculation throughout the country, and 
the idea of securing the rich trade of China and the Sandwich 
Islands, without the long journey around the Horn, appealed to 
all those interested in commercial ventures. Asa Whitney's plan 
for a transcontinental line to Oregon received much attention and 
was laid before Congress near the close of October, 1845.^^ Many, 
however, who believed in the ultimate success of the undertaking, 
as in the case of th© editor of the New York paper, advocated 

"For example, Larkin's letter of July 31 to the Journal of Commerce 
was reprinted from that paper in the Washington Daily Union of Oct. 21, 
1845, and in the Charleston Mercury of Oct. 22. In how many other papers 
it appeared cannot be stated. 

"Beach to Larkin, Dec. 24, 1845. Kirkin MSS., Ill, No. 307. 

"Letter of Whitney printed in Washington Daily Union, Feb. 6, 1846. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 61 

Monterey or San Erancisco as the terminus/" thereby making the 
acquisition of these communities by the United States still more 
desirable. 

Increased Immigration. — The western papers, in addition to 
such descriptions as were contained in those of the eastern states, 
were concerned with the actual organization and departure of emi- 
grant companies.-^ Any report of the discovery of a shorter route 
to the new land at once received public notice;-- while not in- 
frequently such an advertisement as the following made its ap- 
pearance in a local paper, to be copied by many another western 
editor : 

"Emigration" (read the headline of this sample notice) 

For California — A large party of settlers propose leaving Ar- 
kansas for California, next May.^^ The chairman of the Com- 
mittee of Arrangements gives notice in the Little Eock Gazette 
that the Californians will rendezvous at Fort Smith, Arkansas, on 
the first Monday in April next, preparatory to taking up the line 
of march for the Pacific Coast. Every person starting is expected 
to be well armed with a rifle or heavy shot-gun, 16 pounds of shot 
or lead, 4 pounds of powder, etc.^* 

''"Daily Union, Oct. 16, 1845, giving an outline of transcontinental routes, 
as follows: 1. Canal across the Isthmus of Darien. 2. Railroad along 
the Rio del Norte to San Francisco. 3. Line from St. Louis through the 
Rocky Mts. to Oregon ("California is henceforth to he the promised land 
to the emigrant seeking a home on the Pacific"). The New Orleans 
Picayune of Nov. 22 had a statement from Albert M. Gilliam, "late U. S. 
consul at California" — [Gilliam was appointed for San Francisco but 
never assumed his duties] — that California would soon fall into Anglo- 
Saxon hands and a railroad would be needed to terminate at San Francisco. 

^Extracts upon this subject from the St. Louis Neio Era, the Burlington 
Hawkeye, the St. Louis Reporter, the Missouri Era, were printed in the 
single issue of the Daily Union for May 20, 1845. 

"Extract from the Western Expositor stating that Fremont's return 
from California would probably result in the discovery of a route 300 or 
400 miles shorter than the one already in use, and the saving of two 
months' time on the trip. Daily Union, July 31, 1845; New Orleans 
Picayune, April 22, 1846. 

-'Parties for California always left in the spring in order to cross the 
mountains during the summer, and arrived in California during the fall. 
A late passage of the Sierras was accompanied with great danger, as for 
example, in the case of the Donner party. 

^*Daily Union, Jan. 9, 1846. This project had been conceived some time 
before; 1000 persons were to be enlisted, their goods shipped by sea while 
they themselves went overland. Ibid., Sept. 17, 1845. 



63 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

As a result of all this publicity, emigration to California re- 
ceived a decided impetus. In May, 1845, it was commonly re- 
ported that 7000 persons had assembled at Independence, Mis- 
souri, ready to take the road to Oregon and Califomia.^^ In No- 
vember, Larkin informed the state department that some three 
hundred or four hundred of this company had arrived at the head- 
waters of San Francisco Bay.^** From this time on, arrivals con- 
tinued in a steady stream; while exaggerated rumors of future 
immigration were flying thickly through the province. 

As early as July 15, Sutter had predicted the arrival of "more 
as 1000 Souls" within six or eight weeks.-'' Marsh was confident 
that two thousand immigrants would shortly be in the territory.^^ 
Stephen Smith, writing to Calhoun from Bodega, placed the num- 
ber actually on the border at one thousand.-^ And a little later a 
report reached Larkin that the number would soon be increased 
by ten or twenty thousand, though the writer added that he him- 
self did not believe more than two or three thousand would really 
come.^° 

Mention has been made of the emigration from Oregon to Cali- 
fornia in the years previous to 1845. The same movement con- 
tinued to supply the latter territory with much of its American 
population. Many of these came directly from the northern coun- 
try; others starting originally for the Columbia, decided en route 
to change their destination to California. ^^ The usual division 
point for such parties was at Fort Hall, which still remained in 

-Waily Union, Mav 20, 1845; Eobinson [from N. Y.] to Larkin, May 29. 
Larkin MSS., TIL No. 170. 

"Larkin to Secretary of State, Nov. 4, 1845 {Official Correspondence, 
Part II, No. 28) ; also same to same, -June 16, 1846 {Ibid., 94-96) ; same 
to F. M. Dimond, United States consul at Vera Cruz, March 1, 1846 
{Ibid., No. 91) ; same to United States minister at Mexico, April 3, 1846 
{Ibid., No. 78). 

"Sutter to Larkin (Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 220) ; same to same, Oct. 8, 
1845. Thousands coming within the year. Mexico cannot stem the stream; 
if she tried they would "fight like Lyons." Ibid., No. 315. 

=*Marsh to Larkin, Aug. 12. Ibid., No. 247. 

-"Jameson, The Correspondence of John C. Calhoun (Washington. Amer- 
ican Historical Association. 1900), 1069. 

^''Sutter to Larkin, March 2, 1846 (Larkin MSS., IV, No. 53) ; Hastings 
to Larkin, March 3, 1846. Ibid., No. 55. 

^See for example statements of Ide, Swasey, and Clyman in their pub- 
lished works. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 63 

the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company; and it was reported 
that British officers at the Fort were taking a hand in this pro- 
ceeding, persuading Oregon bound settlers to turn off for Cali- 
fornia in order to preserve the Columbia to England.^- On the 
other hand, it should be remarked that English papers condemned 
the so-called emigration to Oregon, which was creating so much 
excitement throughout the United States, as simply a ruse for the 
occupation of California. ^^ 

Between the Americans most interested in the respective settle- 
ment of the two territories, a good deal of rivalry prevailed. 
Among the Oregon enthusiasts a committee was organized to 
counteract the representations of the California agents;^* while 
the latter pursued an even more aggressive campaign in winning 
recruits for the colonization of the southern country. ^^ 

"The Texas Game." — This emigration to California, during 
1845 and the first months in 1846, of which we have just been 
speaking, was prompted by more than a desire for mere settle- 
ment. "Once let the tide . . . flow toward California," wrote 
one of Larkin's New York friends, "and the American popula- 
tion will be sufficiently numerous to play the Texas game."^® 
"Are there not enough wild Yankees in California to take the 
management of affairs in their own hands ?" asked another, adding 
that the United States must eventually spread south of the 42d 
parallel, "as our territory on the Pacific is too narrow altogether, 

^^Letter from an Oresfon immigrant to the Ohio Patriot, copied in the 
Daily Union, Dec. 30, 1845; also extract from Sangamon Journal in the 
Daily Union, Jan. 1, 1846. 

''The London Athenaeum, July 11, 1846, in reviewing Robinson's Life in 
California, said that emigrants leaving ostensibly for the Willamette Val- 
ley were really bound for California and that the whole country was deter- 
mined to possess San Francisco; the London Illustrated Netos, Oct. 11, 
1845, said the majority of emigrants to Oregon leave as soon as possible 
for California; letter of Sir George Simpson in Niles' Register, LXVIII, 
393 — 1000 of 5000 Oregon emigrants have left for California; New Or- 
leans Picayune, Aug. 7, 1845 — statement to same effect. 

"Bancroft, XXIX, 552. n. 

"Marsh to Larkin, Aug. 12, 1845. Has seen the newspaper articles by 
Oregonians derogatory to California. Will write in defence a reply set- 
ting forth the merits and advantages of the province. Larkin MSS., Ill, 
No. 247. 

'"Robinson to Larkin, May 29, 1845. Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 170. Rob- 
inson added that the papers were filled with such suggestions. 



64 Early Sentim&nt for Annexation of Calif orma 

the outlet is not sufficient for the back country."^^ A third be- 
lieved two or three hundred Yankee riflemen, in conjunction with 
the Californians, could bring about a separation from Mexico, and 
suggested that as the thirty Americans taken by the British Gov- 
ernment in the Canadian revolt and sent to New South Wales, 
were even then at Honolulu on their way home, they might find 
more congenial occupation in California than in the States.^® 

"We only want the Flag of the U. S. and a good lot of Yankees 
and you would soon see the immense natural riches of the country 
developed, and her commerce in a flourishing condition. To see 
that Flag planted here would be most acceptable to the Sons of 
Uncle Sam, and by no means repugnant to the native popula- 
tion,"^^ wrote Stephen Smith, who had recently been released, for 
lack of evidence, from a charge of conspiring to declare California 
independent.*'* It was probably, therefore, with some idea of ful- 
filling these expectations that many of the immigrants reached the 
province. 

Proposed union mill Texas. — Aside from the plan of uniting 
California with the United States after its separation from Mex- 
ico, the idea also prevailed of making it an independent nation, 
dominating the commerce of the Pacific and enriching itself from 
the Asiatic trade. In the early years, as we have seen, the plan 
had been broached of annexing it to Texas.*^ And as late as 
1844,*^ Houston wrote to Murphy that a nation embracing Texas, 
California, Oregon and the two provinces of Chihuahua and So- 
nera would "not be less than a rival power to any of the nations 
now in existence. . . . It is impossible to look upon the map 
of North America and not perceive the rationale of the project."*' 
A few months later Donelson found him awaiting the action of 
the United States Congress on annexation, but still revolving a 
plan for the increase of Texan domain, dwelling with some fond- 

''Atherton to Larkin, March 4, 1S46. lUd., IV, No. 58. 

'^Hooper to Larkin (from Honohilu), April 29, 1845. Ihid., III. 

'^Smith to Calhoun, Dec. 30, 1845. Calhoun Correspondence, 1060. 

^"Bancroft, XXI, 601. 

"The Quarterly, XVIII, 17, n. 53. 

*^See also Green's report of Hasting's scheme, The Quarterly, XVIII, 
36-37. 

^^William Carev Crane, TAfe and literary remains of ^ani Hotiston of 
Texas (Philadelphia. J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1884), 366-370. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 65 

ness "upon the capacity of Texas to extend her territory to the 
Pacific and even detach Oregon from us, because tliere are no 
Alleghanies to separate them;** while in April, 1845, the Lon- 
don Times was urging the adoption of a similar measure, so that 
the territory in question might possess "an original character and 
an independent existence/'*^ 

California and Oregon as an independent nation. — All of these 
schemes, however, came to an end with the annexation of Texas 
by the United States. But the conception of an autonomous na- 
tion, composed of Oregon and California, still proved very at- 
tractive to many minds. It was an old idea, tracing its origin 
back at least to 1812, when the father of American expansionists 
expressed his conviction that men of his own nationality would 
one day "spread themselves through the whole length of that coast 
[the Pacific], covering it with free and independent Americans, 
unconnected with us but by the ties of blood and interest, and 
employing like us the rights of self-government."*'' ' 

The attention drawn to the whole Pacific coast by the Oregon 
controversy and the rapidly growing necessity for a change in the 
control of California, made Jefferson's prophecy appear to many 
the best solution for both problems. For it had long been felt 
that the vast distance separating Oregon and the United States, 
and the appalling diflficulties of the route, would prevent its ade^ 
quate government by the authorities at Washington. Nor did it 
seem possible to some minds that the western boundary of the 
Republic should extend beyond the Eocky Mountains.*'^ To those 
who held such views it appeared both natural and expedient that 
California and Oregon should be united into a strong, independent 
country, settled by American emigrants, and standing on the Pa- 
cific as a sort of complementary nation to the United States. 

"The situation of California," said Wilkes in his official report, 

"Donelson to Jackson, Dec. 28, 1844. Jackson MSS. 

^^-SHles' Register, LXVIII, 205. 

"Thomas Jefferson to John Jacob Astor, May 24, 1812 (The loritings 
of Thomas Jefferson. Forded. New York. G. P. Putman's Sons. 1898), 
IX, 351. 

"Armals of Congress, XL, 422-423; 598-599; Thomas H. Benton, Thirty 
years' vie^o (New York. D. Appleton and Company, 1854). II, 430; 
McMaster, History of the United States, VII, 296-297; 300-301, and au- 
thorities quoted. 



66 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

"will cause its seioaration from Mexico before many years. It is 
very probable that the country will become united with Oregon 
with which it will perhaps form a state that is designed to con- 
trol the destiny of the P^cific.*^ A year or two later, Waddy 
Thompson assures us, he was told of a definite plot to separate 
California from Mexico and asked if the United States would be 
willing to surrender her title to Oregon so that that territory and 
California might be made into a Eepublic.*" Benjamin E. Green 
sent much the same report to Calhoun, adding, however, that the 
Oregon settlers were not anxious for the plan, provided they could 
receive aid and encouragement from the United States in main- 
taining their hold upon Oregon.^*' In England, also, the idea of 
an independent state on the Pacific seems to have obtained some 
favor. Lord Ashburton wrote Webster that the power possessing 
Oregon and California should be independent of Great Britain 
and the United States, but of the English race;^^ while Louis 
McLane, when ambassador to England, in one of his despatches 
to Buchanan, spoke of the plan as having been "suggested simul- 
taneously by certain classes on both sides of the Atlantic," add- 
ing, it may be remarked, that such an arrangement would work 
untold disadvantage to this government.^- 

References to this plan, likewise, were frequently met with in 
the debates in Congress. As late as March, IS'46, in a discussion 
of the Oregon question. Senator Evans of Maine declared the 
union of that territory and California, separated as they were from 
the United States by an almost impassable barrier of mountains, 
would promote the interests of this country much more as an in- 
dependent nation than as a territorial possession. ^^ On the other 
hand, an opponent of Evans assured the senate that unless some 
action was speedily taken to settle the status of the region around 
the Columbia, the settlers there would place themselves under 
Fl-ench or English protection, be joined by the Californians. and 

^^Wilkes' Narrative, Y, 182-183. 

^"Thompson, Recollections, 232. His informant was Lansford W. Has- 
tings. 

^"Green to Calhoun, April 11, 1844. Calhoun Correspondence, 946. 

"^George Bancroft to Polk, April 27, 1845. Polk MSS. 

"^McLane to Buchanan, Dec. 1, 1845. MS., State Department. 

°'Co«(7. Glole, 29 Cong., 1 sess., p. 478. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 67 

eventually control the coast from the Isthmus of Darien to the 
southern boundaries of Alaska.^* 

As a local affair, the proposed union with Oregon aroused con- 
siderable speculation in California. Lansford W. Hastings had 
come to the province in 1842 with the express purpose, as we have 
seen, of bringing about its separation from Mexico and uniting it 
either with Texas or with Oregon, in the latter event making him- 
self president of the new Eepublic.^^ 

In the intervening 3^ears his time had been occupied in efforts 
to encourage emigration throughout the United States, and with 
the conducting of parties, thus organized, into California.^® By 
1845 the idea of independence and union with Oregon was fre- 
quently mentioned in the correspondence of American residents, 
some of whom favored it above annexation to the United States.^'^ 
Dr. John Marsh, one of the older settlers, communicated his views 
at some length to Larkin, but took the ground that California 
must first become part of the American Union and not attempt a 
separate existence with Oregon until immigration should render 
such a step advisable.^* Continuing, Marsh said that the settlers 
on the Willamette were anxious to unite with the Californians, 
while some expressed a desire to join with Oregon. Under such 
circumstances he thought it would be wise if Larkin were to feel 
the pulse of Alvarado on the subject; and prophesied that, if the 
union could be accomplished, a new empire would arise on the 
Pacific, whose capital located on San Francisco Bay, "possibly on 
the site occupied by the miserable village of Yerba Buena," would 
"in the next century become one of the great emporii^^ of the 
world." 

"76/(Z., 350. 

^'Bidwell, Life in California. 110-112; 116; Calhoun Correspondence, 
940 et seq.; Bancroft, XXI, 578. 

^^Hartnell to Wyllie, March 17. 1844. Vallejo Documentos, XXXII, 
No. 14. 

"Stephen Reynolds (Oahn) to Larkin, April 19, 1845 — Believes if Cali- 
fornia unites with the United States the nation will be too unwieldlv to 
last (Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 116) : Atherton to Larkin, Feb. 11, 1845. 
Ibid., No. 25. 

^^Marsh to Larkin. Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 247. Marsh included the 
territory north of the Columbia in his scheme, perhaps as far as the 54th 
parallel. From the tone of this letter Larkin had evidently expressed 
himself in favor of the Oregon union. 

^'Marsh was a Harvard College graduate. 



68 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

Rumors of Mormon Hegira. — In addition to this plan of unit- 
ing Oregon and California, another movement was reported to 
be on foot in the United States that would result in the separa- 
tion of the latter from Mexico. "California now offers a field for 
the prettiest enterprise that has been undertaken in modern times/' 
Governor Ford is said to have written to Brigham Young, leader 
of the Mormons, early in 1845. "Why should it not be a pretty 
operation for your people to go out there, take possession of and 
capture a portion of that vacant country and establish an inde- 
pendent government of your own, subject only to the laws of 
nations ?"«° 

Whether, as appears very doubtful, such a letter were ever writ- 
ten is immaterial.®^ The fact remains that the conception of a 
Mormon empire on the Pacific proved so attractive to the leaders 
of this eect''^ that preparation was made to emigrate as a body to 
the region around San Francisco. Lansford W. Hastings, who 
had returned again to the United States to obtain more settlers, 
was easily prevailed upon to make himself a sort of advance agent 
for the host and made his way back to California to prepare the 
ground for their coming.''^ 

Eeports of the design spread throughout the United States and 
aroused no little opposition,*'* the president, even, being petitioned 
to prevent the movement, but refusing because "the right of emi- 

^oFord to Young, April 8, 1845, in Edward W. Tullidge, History of Salt 
Lale City and Its Founders (Salt Lake City. Edward W. Tullidge), 8. 

^^Polk, Diary, I, 205-206. 

"-Tullidge claims the plan originated as early as 1842, and that in 1844 
Brjgham Young instructed the twelve apostles to send out a delegation 
to investigate Oi'cgon and California. Ibid., 4-6. 

"^He arrived at Sutter's on Dec. 25, 1845. Diary of New Helvetia Events, 
MS., p. 25; Leese to Larkin, Jan. 12, 1846. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 12. 

"^Editorial in the New York Sun, and a letter from Bennett of the New 
York Herald, stating that 25 companies of 100 families were bound for 
San Francisco Bay, and would become troublesome to the United States, 
either in Oregon or California and the government should look to the 
matter. Reprinted in the Washington Daily Union, Nov. 20, 1845. 

John H. Everett (Boston) to Larkin, Dec. 12, 1845 — Mormons will be in 
California next spring and act as the Israelites did toward the nations 
among whom they came — "kill you all and take your possessions. . . . 
One of today's papers says . . . 10,000 are to start for California. 
Look out for an avalanche." Larkin MSS., III. Beach (New York Sun) 
to Larkin, Dec. 24, 1845 — 100,000 Mormons will be in California by spring. 
Ibid., No. 407. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 69 

gration or expatriation was one which any citizen possessed/'''^ 
Plans were made for an overland journey, to include the larger 
part of the Prophet's followers; while a smaller number were to 
be sent around by sea. This latter party, numbering nearly two 
hundred and forty, left New York in the Brooklyn on February 4, 
1846, under the command of Samuel Brannan; while the main 
body, under Young, began its slow and toilsome way across the 
continent. 

With neither of these companies has the present account much 
further concern. The one reached San Francisco on July 31, 
three weeks after Commodore Sloat's arrival, and tradition says 
that Brannan's first remark upon entering the harbor was, "There 
is that damned flag again."*''^ The other, so it is said, stopped 
at Salt Lake because messengers from California met them there 
with word of the American occupation. 

New activities of Lansford W. Hastings. — Hastings, meanwhile, 
in California was prophesying its speedy independence and claim- 
ing the connivance of the United States government in his project. 
As early as November, a friend in Boston had written Larkin to 
conduct his business as he would have done had he been in Texas 
ten years before, with a knowledge of the changes that were to 
occur there. Capital, he went on, was to be spent colonizing Cali- 
fornia.; and a revolution, backed by American men and money, 
would soon result. The settlement of Oregon was only a blind 
for the occupation of the Mexican province. "The egg is already 
laid not a thousand miles from Yerba Buena and in New York 
the chicken will be picked. Our men of war are not ordered to 
California for nothing."®^ . . . 

Hastings, as has been said, was advancing much the same idea 
of a strong backing in the United States, and even the sanction 
of the "government. Thousands of people, he wrote Larkin, had 
their eyes turned to Oregon and California, determined to 

'''Diary, I, 205-206. 

^'Bancroft, XXII. 550. 

"Samuel J. Hastings to Larkin, Nov. 9. 1845. Larkin MSS.. Ill, No. 
570. This Hastings had frequently been on the California coast as master 
of the brig Tasso. Whether he was a kinsman of the Lansford Hastings 
so frequently mentioned is uncertain; but evidently he had knowledge of 
his plans. See also Everett (Boston) to Lai'kin, Sept. 15 — "if the plan of 
a colony succeeds we may soon expect a declaration of independence or a 
desire of annexation from your part of the world." Ibid., No. 290. 



70 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

make a final move and establish a permanent home. The firm of 
Benson and Company was about to establish a large commercial 
house somewhere in the territory, and send two ships a year to the 
coast for the free transportation of colonists. Under pledge of 
secrecy he concluded, "The arrangement is a confidential govern- 
ment arrangement. The expense thus incurred is not borne by 
that house, but by our government, for the promotion of what 
object you will readily perceive."®^ 

How much ground Hastings had for this statement cannot be 
known. His project plainly embraced a much wider scope than 
the single element of the Mormon settlement; and it is probable 
that the commercial firm mentioned in his letter was actually 
concerned in a scheme for colonizing certain portions of the coun- 
try. It is scarcely possible, however, that the government had any 
hand in it, as he insisted and doubtless believed.^^ 

Native attitude toward the Americans. — Having spoken at 
length of the conditions existing in California, the feeling of the 
United States regarding its acquisition, the flow of immigration 
across the mountains that formed its eastern boundary, and the 
various rumors of independence current during the period, we 
come again to a discussion of the president's policy as it was 
affected by these circumstances. A further word, however, will 
be necessary to understand the attitude of the native Californians 
toward the Americans. 

Naturally, the influx of strangers during the year 1845, and 
the known wish of the United States to possess California, caused 

='L. W. Hastings to Larkin, March 3, 1846. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 55. 
Hastings was even then on his way to Oregon after more settlers. He 
had placed the number expected during the following year at 20,000. 

""Tullidge insists that Brannan learned that the government was prepar- 
ing to hinder the emigration of the Mormons (because it was feared they 
would join with the English or Mexican interests in California, against the 
United States) and that Amos Kendall and other prominent men in Wash- 
ington undertook to prevent this, provided Young and his followers would 
deed to them "through A. G. Benson and Co.," half the lands and town lots 
they secured in California. It was also said that Polk was a silent partner 
to the scheme. 

Some interesting light is thrown on this assertion by Polk's Diary. 
Kendall seems to have taken a pretty active interest in Mormon affairs, 
as the Salt Lake historian says; and Polk refused, as we have shown, to 
prevent their emigration. But the president scarcely would have lent 
himself to any such scheme of petty blackmail. Diary, 1, 444; 449-450; 
455-456. 



Earhj Sentiment for Annexation of California 71 

some apprehension among those of its inhabitants who desired to 
see the province remain under Mexican control. But on the whole 
there was little in the treatment accorded the immigrants by the 
Californians of which they had a right to complain. Frequent 
orders requiring their expulsion came from Mexico, but they were 
uniformly set aside by the California officials.^" Though sub- 
Prefect Guerrero, perhaps with much justification, wrote to 
Castro : "Friend, the idea these gentlemen have formed for them- 
selves is, that God made the world and them also, therefore what 
there is in the world belongs to them as sons of God," he seems 
to have taken no measures to expel the foreigners from his own 
district. And while Castro, with some heat, declared before a 
junta at Monterey, "these Americans are so contriving that some 
day they will build ladders to touch the sky, and once in the 
heavens they will change the whole face of the universe and even 
the color of the stars,"^^ \^^ perhaps thought it useless to en- 
deavor to keep them from changing the destiny of California. 

Indeed, the only measures that looked toward putting a stop 
to immigration, aside from juntas and meetings of the assembly 
(which came to nothing), were a recommendation made by Castro 
and Vallejo to the central government to purchase the fort at New 
Helvetia from Sutter;'^" and an abortive expedition from Mexico 
that was intended to cope with the incoming Americans. The 
control of New Helvetia, had it been in California hands, could 
have been made a serious obstacle to the arrival of parties across 
the Sierras ; but though Sutter encouraged the suggested purchase., 
the proposition got no further than the Mexican archives. The 
second expedient met with no better success, ending in charges of 
extravagance, corruption, and the final revolt of such soldiers as 
had been assembled, even before they left Mexico, most of them 

"Larkin to State Department, June 5, 1845 — 3 or 4 orders received 
from Mexico. Commancl^ante General informs liim he is perfectly willing- 
to lay these aside and allow men to proceed to any place they desire 
(Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 22) ; also, Castro, Documentos, I. Nos. 
152, 214; Bancroft, XXT, 604-605. 

"Guerrero to Castro, Jan. 24, 1846. Castro, Documentos, VT, No. 309. 

^^Alvarado, Historia cle California, II, 133-134. 

"Lancey, Cruise of the Dale, 41; Swasey, Statement (MS., Bancroft 
Collection); Bancroft, XXI, 614. 



72 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

turning from the expedition to aid Parades in his contest with 
HerreraJ* 

Larkin as Polh's informant. — Of the progress of all these events 
in California, Polk was well informed. Kot merely did he have 
the usual channels of news, which, as we have seen, kept the public 
aware of much that transpired in the province; but in Thomas 0. 
Larkin he had an additional source of reliable and frequent in- 
formation. '''' The American consul's despatches, from the time of 
his appointment, dealt with the four or five broad topics that were 
of vital interest to the authorities at Washington in forming their 
California policy. These were, first, the condition of California 
from a political and military point of view and the strength of its 
loyalty to Mexico; second, the sentiment among the inhabitants 
toward the United States; third, the progress of American immi- 
gration and the reception of American settlers; fourth, the influ- 
ence of European nations in the afi'airs of the province. 

Omitting his references to the last subject, for the present, we 
find that on the remaining questions Larkin's communications to 
the state department gave full and important information. Especi- 
ally did he emphasize the friendly feeling existing toward the 
American residents and the lack of attachment to Mexico. The 
military strength of the province he placed at two hundred and 
eighty Mexican troops and a smaller number of Californians, with 
a militia theoretically numbering one thousand, but practically 
not amounting to one-tenth of that force. The effectiveness of 
even this small army was decreased by half, he added, as part of 
it was stationed at San Francisco, in the northern part of the 
state, and part at San Diego, in the southern. Monterey had no 
cannon; and, to complete the demoralization, the Californians 
feared the Mexican troops more tlian those of a foreign nation, 

^*The rumors of this expedition filled California for many months, the 
force being reported as numbering from 500 to 18.000. Larkin to New- 
York Sun, Sept. 30, 1845. Larkin MSS., TIT, No. 305; Pini to Larkin 
(from Mazatlan) July 3, lUd., No. 211; McKinley to Larkin, July 12. 
lUd., No. 218; Stearns to Larkin, June 19. lUrh, No. 196. See also 
Bancroft, XXTT, 33. 

''See also Parrott to T3ucha.nan, Oct. 11, 1845. MS., State Department. 
L. W. Hastings had likewise called upon the president and acquainted him 
with the conditions in California, when in Washington. Hastings to 
Larkin, Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 13. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 73 

and would gladly welcome the return of an American squadron 
such as Jones had brought.'^^ 

The revolt against Micheltorena was made the subject of con- 
siderable comment, Larkin mentioning as an aside that within 
twelve years four revolutions had occurred, all of which had been 
won by the Californians ; and that five of the six Mexican gen- 
erals, arriving during that time, had been sent back, while the 
remaining one had died. In conclusion he left the impression 
that the movement had resulted in the independence of the coun- 
try, de facto, if not de jure.''' 

The effect of this early information is seen in the despatches 
sent to Commodore Sloat by the secretary of the navy, when, in 
the summer of 1845, war between this country and Mexico seemed 
imminent. "The Mexican ports on the Pacific," wrote George 
Bancroft in these confidential instructions, 

are said to be open and defenceless. If you ascertain with cer- 
tainty that Mexico has declared war against the United States, 
you will at once possess yourself of the harbor of San Francisco 
and blockade or occupy such other ports as your force may per- 
mit. . . . You will be careful to preserve, if possible, the 
most friendly relations with the inhabitants, and, where you can 
do so, you will encourage them to adopt a course of neutrality.''^ 

Two later despatches from Larkin, received in the fall of that 
year,'^^ simply reiterated the opinions he had expressed in his 
former communication, laying emphasis in addition upon the de- 
signs of France and England on the province, a matter, as we 
shall see, that caused the administration no small anxiety. 

Larkin's instructions. — At this time Polk was making arrange- 
ments to send Slidell upon the mission already mentioned. On 
October 17, while the question of the American minister's recep- 
tion was so much in doubt as to delay his departure, Buchanan 

"Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 18, 1844. Larkin Official Correspondence, 
Pt. II, No. 9. Same to same, Sept. 16. Ibid., No. 10. 

"Larkin to Calhoun, March 22, 1845. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 
No. 19. 

"ff. Ex. Docs., 29 Cong., 2 sess., No. 19, page 75. These are also printed 
in whole or in part in most of the secondary works on the period. 

"Larkin to Secretary of State, June 5. 1845. MS., State Department; 
also Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 22. Same to same, July 10. 
MS. State Department; Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 25. 



74 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

addressed a long, confidential letter to the consul, who, from Mon- 
terey, had furnished the government with so much of its valuable 
information. In this letter to Larkin, the internal policy the 
administration was determined to pursue regarding California 
was clearly outlined; and, by the appointment of Larkin as con- 
fidential agent to carry out the terms, definitely set in motion. 

So much has been written regarding this despatch, since Ban- 
croft first brought it to light, and it has been printed, either 
wholly or in part, so frequently that, important as it is, a mere 
summary of its contents will be sufficient here.^^ Aside from the 
notification it carried to Larkin of his appointment as confidential 
agent, it instnicted him to guard against the encroachments and 
influence of foreign nations in California; to cultivate friendly 
relations with the inhabitants in every way possible on behalf of 
this government, and assure them that, if they declared their in- 
dependence, the United States stood ready to receive tliem under 
her protection, whenever this could be done "without affording 
Mexico Just cause of complaint"; and finally, to forward frequent 
communications to the department regarding the internal condi- 
tions of the province (with a list of its leading citizens and offi- 
cials), its trade and commercial affairs, and the amount and char- 
acter of the American immigration. 

Three copies of this despatch left Washington. One went to 
Slidell to aid him in his negotiations with Mexico ;^^ one was sent 
by way of Cape Horn and Honolulu on the U. S. S. Congress; 
and the third was entrusted to Lieutenant Archibald H. Gillespie 
of the marine corps. Going overland through Mexico, Gillespie 
was forced to destroy the written document in his possession, but 
before doing so memorized its contents. 

Gillespie, however, was much more than a bearer of despatches. 
To him, as to Larkin, Polk had entrusted the carrying out of his 
policy in California, and an effort was made to keep his identity 
a secret. So, travelling as an invalid merchant seeking health, he 
reached Monterey on April 17, 1846,^^^ delivering to Larkin the 

'"Bancroft, XXT, 596-597; Century Magazine. XIX, 928-929. For the 
complete despatch see Buchanan, Works. VI, 275-278; Rayner Wickersham 
Kelsey, The United States Consulate in California. Publications of the 
Academy of Pacific Coast History. Vol. I, No. 5, June, 1910, pp. 100-103. 

^Buchanan, Works, VI, 304; Kelsey, 58 n. 

'^Bancroft; XXII; 26-27; Kelsey, 64. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 75 

news of his appointment and writing- out from memory the in- 
structions Buchanan had drawn up six months before.®^ 

Bear Flag Revolt. — For the most part, the actual proceedings 
of Larkin and Gillespie in California after this time lie beyond 
the scope of the present narrative. In connection with the Bear 
Flag Eevolt, and Fremont's participation therein, however, it will 
be necessary to go into some detail to determine whether or not 
it was a part of the president's policy to put such a movement 
into operation. To understand clearly the situation, we must note 
again that California's separation from Mexico could be achieved 
in two ways — by a revolt of the native Californians, aided by 
American residents; or by an uprising of the American residents 
against the native Californians. This condition was distinctly 
different, as will be readily seen, from that which had existed in 
Texas when Houston led the settlers there in the struggle for in- 
dependence. 

We have mentioned that Gillespie and Larkin were to serve as 
Polk's agents in California. The same mission was also entrusted 
to John C. Fremont, whose first arrival in California has been 
spoken of, and who had returned on his third exploring tour at 
the head of sixty-five men, reaching the province early in Decem- 
ber, 1845.^* It is not our purpose to follow the story of his diffi- 
culties with the California authorities (after they had given him 
permission to winter in the territory under their jurisdiction) and 
the affair at Hawk's Peak.®^ 

It is worth while, however, to add a suggestion to account for 
the sudden change of front on the part of Prefect Manuel Castro 
and his peremptory order of March 5 that the American com- 
mander quit the country. The reasons for this have been vari- 
ously given as the receipt of orders from Mexico (none of which 

'Ubid., also Larkin MSS., III. No. 337. 

^Bancroft, XXI, 581-585. It is not considered necessary to go into 
detail regarding the division of the party. Fremont spent "from .Jan. 27 
to Feb. 9 at Monterey, upon Larkin's invitation, buying supplies and dis- 
cussing the political aflfairs of the country with the American consul. 
Kelsey, 52. 

*'For the permission granted by the California authorities, see Larkin 
to Manuel Castro (Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 76) ; Gov. 
Pio Pico to Castro, Feb. 18, 1846. Castro, Documentos, II, No. 23, copy. 
For the Hawk's Peak affair see Bancroft, XXII, 5-21, and citations; 
Kelsey, 98-99. 
t 



76 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

Castro would have obeyed unless he pleased) f^ the violation of a 
tacit agreement by Fremont to remain at some distance from the 
California settlements f^ and the mere desire of the prefect to 
send a report of his zeal to Mexico, without having any hostile 
intentions whatever toward the strangers.*^ There seems to be 
sufficient ground, however, for adding as a fourth explanation, the 
influence of the British vice-consul, Alexander Forbes, who pro- 
tested formally in the name of his government against the pres- 
ence of Fremont and his followers in the department.®^ Castro, 
not only willing to make a show of pleasing Forbes, but fearing 
the displeasure of the Mexican government if he paid no heed to 
this remonstrance, had nothing else to do than bid the intruder 
be gone. 

It was not long after this that Gillespie reached Monterey. In 
addition to the instructions for Larkin, he carried a note of in- 
troduction from Buchanan to Fremont and a package of letters 
to the same individual from Senator Benton, Fremont's father- 
in-law.^° Without lingering long at Monterey, Gillespie hastened 
on to Yerba Buena in pursuit of Fremont, who, by this time, was 
well on his way to Oregon. At Yerba Buena, Gillespie spent some 
days with the American vice-consul, W. A. Leidesdorff, and then 
continued his journey, finally overtaking the explorer in the heart 
of the Oregon woods. 

What passed between Gillespie and Fremont it would be inter- 
esting to know. No written instructions were sent to the latter 
by Buchanan, and even those given to Gillespie are not on file. 
Yet, both from the testimony of Fremont and Gillespie, and the 

^^This was the reason assi<?necl officially but it was recognized as only a 
blind. Larkin to Commander of any American ship at Mazatlan, March 9, 
1846. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 38; same to Secretary of State 
(Ibid.) Frgmont, Memoirs, I, 461. 

^'Bancroft, XXI, 596-597. 

^^Larkin to Secretary of State, April 18. Official Correspondence, Ptl II, 
No. 41. 

^'Forbes to Oliveria, Jan. 28, 1846, in Ephraim Douglas Adams, British 
interests and activities in Texas, 1838-Jt6 [Addendum, English interests 
in the annexation of California]. (Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins Press. 
1910), p. 251. See also Guerrero to Castro (from San Francisco), Jan. 24, 
1846. Castro, Documentos. 

""Bancroft, XXII, 86, citations from the subseqvient testimony of Gil- 
lespie and Fremont. Gillespie had also held several private interviews 
with Polk before leaving Washington. Polk, Diary, I, 84-85. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 77 

nature of the case, these could not have differed in substance from 
those received by Larkin.^^ Gillespie, however, believed in active 
measures and was well aware of the probable outbreak of a war with 
Mexico.^- In addition Fremont had the letters of Benton, which, 
under guise of family matters, "contained certain passages enig- 
matical and obscure,"^^ bearing upon the subject of California's 
destiny. How largely responsible these were for the subsequent 
course of Fremont, will probably never be known. 

He and Gillespie, returning at once to California, found the 
settlers on the Sacramento in a fit mood to revolt against the Cali- 
fornians. By encouraging these, if not actually becoming the 
leaders of the movement, they gave to it the aspect of having been 
begun with the sanction of the United States government; when, 
in reality, it was exactly contrary to the policy Polk had endeav- 
ored to carry into execution; and, furthermore, distinctly at 
variance with the course pursued by Larkin, the third of the ad- 
ministration's agents. 

The consul, it is true, expected Fremont's arrival to result in 
important changes in the destiny of California.^* And Gillespie 
had written him from San Francisco, on his way to find Fremont, 
that the Americans of that region had voluntarily expressed them- 
selves in favor of a change, while one of them was already circu- 
lating the constitution of Texas.^^ But he had added that the 
Californians themselves were dissatisfied, and inferred that they 
were ready also to join the movement. 

It needs scarcely be said that this latter idea constituted the 
sum and substance of Larkin's plan.^® Moreover, he was in a 

"Bancroft, XXII, 86. 

'^He had been detained some months in Mexico and hence knew of 
Slidell's probable rejection. Reeves, American Diplomacy under Tyler 
and Polk, 282. 

'^Bancroft, XXII, 86 n., quotation from Fremont's later testimony. 

'^Larkin to Stearns, March 19, 1846. Official Correspondenee, Pt. II, 
No. 90. Marsh to Larkin, Feb. 15 — "The distant rumors of mighty events 
have made me leave the retirement of my farm . . . and I have come 
to this place on a visit to Capt. Fremont. It appears that the present 
year will bring great changes on the face of California." Larkin, MSS., 
iV, No. 39. 

"'Gillespie to Larkin, April 25, 1846. Hid., No. 144. 

'^Larkin to Secretary of State, April 2, 1846 — "The undersigned believes 
that a flag if respectfully planted will receive the good will of much of 



78 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

fair way of bringing about a unification of the Californians with 
the American cause when the settlers' revolt completely upset his 
■calculations, caused the California leaders to forget their mutual 
jealousies,"" and joined them in common cause against the United 
States. 

Larkin's activities, between his appointment as confidential 
agent and the outbreak of the Bear Flag revolution, had taken 
various forms. To several of the leading Americans, who had 
become Mexican citizens, he wrote a circular letter, embodying 
much of the news contained in the despatch from Buchanan, and 
"urging them to aid in winning over the Californians.®^ One of 
these, Abel Stearns, he appointed his confidential assistant in the 
south."" By personal interviews with the most influential men of 
the north, with all of whom he was well acquainted, and by prom- 
ises of future reward to those who advanced the interests of the 
United States, he sought to bring his plan into favor with the 
native leaders.^''*' And, finally, he endeavored to influence the 
action of various juntas by persuading those known to be friendly 
to the American interests to attend as delegates. ^''^ 

As has been said, these efforts gave promise of succeeding. Sev- 
eral of the principal Californians had come over definitely to Lar- 
kin's side.^°^ And General Castro, in the presence of other in- 
fluential men of the department, had drawn up "a short history 
of his plans for declaring California independent in 1847-8, as 

the wealth and respectahility of the country." Official Correspondence, 
Pt. II, No. 40. See also Leidesdorf to Larkin, Mav 7. Larkin MSS., IV, 
TSTo. 111. 

'^A civil war between Castro and other northern leaders on one side, 
and Governor Pio Pico on the other was about to break out. Bancroft, 
XXII, 30-53. 

"^Larkin to Abel Stearns, Los Anorples; John Warner, San Diego, and 
Jacob Leese, Sonoma, April 17. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 100. 

*»Kelsey, 67-68. 

""Larkin to Secretary of State. July 20, 1846, "Address to Californians." 
Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 13. Larkin also advised many of the 
Californians to take up land before the change came. A copy of a grant 
of eleven square leasrues along the San Joaquin is among the Larkin papers 
of this period. MSS., IV, No. 41. 

'"^Larkin to Lease, May 21, 1846. Larkin, MSS., IV, No. 102. Same 
to Stearns, May 21. Ibid., No. 101. Same to Secretary of State, June 
1. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 44. 

^"-See Larkin to Secretary of State, June 1st, Official Correspondence, 
rt. II, No. 44. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 79 

soon as a sufficient number of foreigners should arrive."^"^ From 
the southern portion of the province equally encouraging reports 
were received ;^^'* and it is no wonder that the word of the taking 
of Sonora and the imprisonment of several of the California 
leaders, among whom was M. G. Vallejo, the most powerful man 
of the province, and a chief supporter of American annexation, 
caused Larkin unwelcome perplexity and surprise.^"^ 

"Why this affair has happened — how or by who[m] I cannot 
imagine — I am not sure it is true,"^^® he wrote when the report 
first reached him. Fremont he considered "culpable for moving 
in the affair of the Bear Party, and perhaps putting the party in 
motion." "The Bear Party have broke all friendship and good 
feeling in Cala. towards our government,""'^ was his final judg- 
ment on the matter. And with this judgment, it would seem, his- 
toiy must agree. 

Why Gillespie and Fremont pursued the course they did will 
never be known with certainty. Nor is it our purpose to examine 
into the possible causes they later claimed in justification of their 
act."^ Whether, as some insist, it was through a desire to assume 
the role in California that Houston filled in Texas,^"'' cannot be 
stated with positiveness ; yet this seems the most reasonable ex- 
planation. The influence of Benton in the proceedings may also 
have played an important part. Three years after the event, a 
former member of Polk's cabinet wrote, "The utter prostration of 

"^Larkin to Secretary of State, July 20, 1846. Official Correspondence, 
Pt. II, No. 54. 

"^Stearns to Larkin, June 12, 1846. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 151. Warner 
to Larkin, June 11. Ihid., 156. 

"'For Vallejo's friendliness to the United States see Bancroft, XXII, 758. 

"'Larkin to Mott. Talbot & Co., Mazatlan, June 18. Larkin MSS., IV, 
No. 165. Neither Leidesdorf nor Sutter had any knowledge of the plans 
or purposes of the revolt. Leidesdorf to Larkin, June 16, Ihid., No. 159; 
Sutter to Larkin. Ihid., No. 160. 

"^Larkin to Buchanan, June 30, 1847. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 
67. See also Bancroft, XXII, 98, and citations. 

"*Benton, Thirty years' view, II, 688-689; John Bigelow, Memoirs of the 
Life and Pvhlic kervice of John Charles Fremont (New York. Derby & 
Jackson, 1856), 141-145. 

"'This is the view taken by Bancroft. The same idea was expressed 
very positively to me by Dr. Willey, founder of the LTniversity of Cali- 
fornia, in an interview Nov. 29, 1911. Dr. Willey was personally ac- 
quainted both with Larkin and Frgmont. See, also, the discussion in 
Rives, The United States and Mexico, 164-194. 



80 Early Senthn&nt for Annexation of California 

Van Buren and of course his [Benton's] own hopes has made him 
frantic — rumor speaks of his emigration to California and it may 
be to carry out some such scheme as many attributed to him when 
Fremont was sent out with his proclamation.""'* 

But whatever the motive — and it may have been entirely patri- 
otic — Fremont and Gillespie certainly had no official sanction for 
what they did. Bancroft, Eoyce, and others, have shown how 
utterly inconsistent it would have been had Polk instructed Lar- 
kin to do all in his power to conciliate the native inhabitants and 
assure them of the friendship of the United States; and at the 
same time advised the two remaining agents to stir up a revolu- 
tion against those very inhabitants. The whole policy of Polk 
with regard to California, on the contrary, was one of pacifica- 
tion. Even after war had been declared against Mexico, those 
who had the conquest of that province in charge were ordered to 
follow out this idea, and "to endeavor to establish the supremacy 
of the American flag without any strife with the people of Cali- 
fornia.""^ 

PolFs own statement, moreover, clears up any remaining doubt. 
"A false statement is being attempted by the opposition," reads 
his diary for March 21, 1848, "to be made to the effect that this 
letter to Mr. Larkin contained instructions to produce a revolu- 
tion in California before Mexico commenced the War against the 
XJ. S., and that Col. Fremont had the authority to make the revo- 
lution. The publication of the letter will prove the falsehood of 
such an inference.""^ 

In summing up Polk's policy with regard to California, we may 
therefore say that it involved no scheme of rebellion on the part 
of the American settlers against the provincial authorities. It did, 
however, include a most earnest attempt at purchase; and, in ad- 
dition, a systematic effort to win over the Californians to a desire 
for the protection of the United States, and tacit encouragement 
to separate from Mexico. Whether or i:iot Polk actuallv brought 
on the Mexican War as a more certain method of securing the 

""Cave Johnston to Polk, March 20, 1840. Polk MSS. Same to same, 
March 22. lUd. 

"^Bancroft, XXII, 106-197 (citations from U. S. Gov. Does., containing 
instructions to Sloat, KearneVj etc.). 

"Tolk, Diary, III, entry for March 21. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 81 

coveted territory (or as Winthrop expressed it, "had there been no 
California there would have been no Mexican War") we are not 
now prepared to say. Two remaining topics, however, must re- 
ceive some attention before we bring this discussion to a close. 
The one concerns the effect of the rumored attempts of European 
nations to secure a foothold in California, and the other the part 
played by the slave holding south in its acquisition. 



82 Early Seniiment for Annexation of California 



Chaptee V 

RUMORED EUROPEAN AGGRESSION IN CALIFORNIA; EFFECT UPON 
AMERICAN POLICY OF ANNEXATION 

The reported designs of England and France to secure control 
of California before its annexation by the United States have 
led, first and last, to a vast amount of surmise and historically 
unprofitable speculation. So far as France is concerned, the 
actual purposes and plans of the government (if indeed they ex- 
isted) remain still unknown. But within the last few years an 
examination of the British Ptiblic Eecord Office has cleared the 
subJQct of English aggression of most of its mystery.^ 

This investigation has shown that while, indeed, the British 
government, as such, had no intentions of acquiring California 
and in fact manifested comparatively little interest in its affairs, 
yet English officials in Mexico, California, and on board Her 
Majesty's vessels of the Pacific, on the contrary, were exceedingly 
anxious to place the province under English control; or, if that 
could not be, to thwart the ambitions of the United States.^ 

The activities of these British representatives and the occa- 
sional rumor of French intrigue naturally aroused no little con- 
cern throughout this country and created a genuine alarm lest 
one or the other power should endeavor to forestall our own plans 
regarding the province. The purpose of this chapter is, there- 
fore, to examine, not the actual designs of France or England, 
but the effect of reports and rumors regarding these designs upon 
the government and people of the United States. 

The earliest fears of English aggression seem to have arisen 
shortly after the publication of the history of California by Alex- 
ander Forbes in 1839. The book was intended not so much to 
convey historical information as to encourage the colonization 
of California by British subjects; and contained a plan, worked 

^This is due to the efforts of Professor Ephraim D. Adams of Leland 
Standford Jr. University. The results of this investigation as published 
in his British Interests and Activities in Texas have already received 
some notice. 

-Adams, British Interests, 234-264. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 83 

out in some detail, by which a cession of that territory might be 
made by Mexico in payment of her debt of $50,000,000 to English 
bondholders. A company, composed of these creditors, was to be 
formed, and to it were to be given many of the same prerogatives 
of territorial sovereignty as those enjoyed by the British East 
India Company.^ 

Forbes's publication had a wide circulation, and,* as its whole 
tone was frankly a plea for English domination in California, 
aroused considerable comment throughout this country. It was 
said that negotiations, such as Forbes had suggested, were already 
in progress, and that England was taking this method of shutting 
the United States away from the Pacific and confining her domain 
to the country east of the Eocky Mountains — thus giving over to 
British control a monopoly of the East India and China trade.^ 

With the beginning of Tyler's administration the fear of Eng- 
lish encroachments had become very real. Owing to the strained 
relations over the Texas, Oregon, and northeastern boundary ques- 
tions, the faintest rumor of an attempt on the part of Great 
Britain to gain a foothold in California was sufficient not merely 
to excite the press of the countrjr but to penetrate even into offi- 
cial circles. 

Seizure of Monterey. — In 18'42 came the seizure of Monterey by 
Commodore Jones, who gave as the compelling motive of his 
action that both he and other high officers of his fleet wished to 
preserve California from falling into the hands of "our great com- 
mercial rival," England. "The Creole affair," he wrote, 

the question of the right of search, the mission of Lord Ashbur- 

'Forbes, 153 (the eighth chapter was entitled "Upper California as a 
field for foreign colonization" ) . The author's brother wrote a preface for 
the book and, while decling to comment upon the plan of colonization, 
said it was one worthy the attention of the English laondholders and also 
of the government. The appendix contained articles on the harbor of 
California, steam navigation on the Pacific, and a prospectus of the 
"Pacific Steam Navigation Company." Forbes also laid great emphasis 
on the importance of constructing an Isthmian Canal under European 
control. 

■'See a review upon this work in the Literature of American History, 
Ed. for the American Library Association (Boston. Houghton, Mifflin & 
Co. 1902). 

^Niles' Register, LVIII, 2; Ibid., 70 (quotations from the New York 
American, New York Express, Baltimore American, and the New Orleans 
papers). See also Bancroft, XXI, 110-112. 



84 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

ton . . . the well founded rumor of a cession of the Cali- 
fornias^ and lastly the secret movements of the English naval 
force in this quarter . . . have all occurred since the date of 
your last despatch. Consequently I am without instructions 
. . . upon what I consider a vital question to the United 
States . . . the occupation of California by Great Britain un- 
der a secret treaty with Mexico.*^ 

Warnings of Waddy Thompson. — "But Jones was not the only 
one in government employ who looked askance at England's mo- 
tives. From Mexico City, Waddy Thompson was urging in his 
despatches to Tyler and Webster British aggression as an impor- 
tant reason for the acquisition of California by the United States. 
In the first of these he said: 

France and England both have [had] their eyes upon it [Cali- 
fornia] ; the latter has yet. — She has already control of the Sand- 
wich Islands, of the Society Islands, N"ew Zealand, etc., etc., and 
through the agency of that Embryo East India Monopoly, the 
Hudson Bay Co. she will ere long have a monopoly of the com- 
merce of the Pacific, and not an American flag will fly on its 
Coasts."^ 

Webster, however, appeared to treat this communication as of 
little moment, writing Thompson on June 27th that he thought 
England had no present designs upon California or even any ob- 
jection to its acquisition by the United States.^ But such an as- 
surance was not sufficient for Thompson. In reply he wrote, 

I have information upon which I can rely that an agent of this 
government is now in England negotiating for the sale, or what 
is precisely the same thing, the mortgage of Upper California for 
the loan of fifteen millions. In my first despatch, I glanced at 
the advantages which would result to our country from the ac- 

*Jones to Upshur, H. Ex. Docs., 27 Cong., 3 sess.. No. 116. 

'Thompson to Webster, April 29, 1842. MS., State Department. The 
H. B. C. had but recently established a permanent post in California when. 
Thompson wrote this. The governor of the company, Sir Greorge Simpson, 
had left the country on Jan. 27, less than two months before Thompson's 
despatch, and had sent a long communication, designed for the British gov- 
ernment, urging the importance and ease of securing California. Simpson 
to Sir John H. Pelly, Honolulu, March 10, 1842, in American Historical 
Review, XIV, 86-93, passim. 

^Webster to Thompson, in Writings and Speeches of Daniel Wehster 
(National Edition. 1903), XIV, 612. Webster had derived his informa- 
tion from Ashburton. Ashburton to Webster, April 28, 1842. Ihid., 192. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 85 

quisition. Great as those advantages would be, the^^ sink in com- 
parison with the evils to our commerce and other interests, even 
more important, from a cession of that country to England.^ 

Even this seems to have caused Webster no alarm; while with 
word of the seizure of Monterey, the subject disappears for the 
time from Thompson's correspondence. In January, however, he 
began again his refrain of warning, perhaps exaggerating his own 
fears to arouse the secretary of state whom he considered entirely 
too indifferent to the danger. After speaking of his earlier de- 
spatches upon England's purpose, and expressing some resentment 
that they had been treated so lightly, Thompson went on: 

I know that England has designs on California and has actually 
made a treaty with Mexico securing to British creditors the right 
to lands there in payment of their debts and that England will 
interpose this treaty in the way of a cession of California and that 
in ten years she will own the country.^" 

To all of this, however, Webster had the assurance of Everett 
and Ashburton regarding the tripartite agreement as sufficient 
answer.^^ But the country at large did not possess such reassur- 
ing evidence. So general became the feeling that Mexico had 
entered into such a treaty with England that the president was 
called upon by unanimous consent of the house to furnish any in- 
formation in his possession as to the truth of the report. ^^ To 
this he replied that the administration had no knowledge that con- 
firmed the rumored negotiations.^^ 

Perhaps rebuffed by the reception of his information, Thomp- 
son had little more to say regarding England and California for 
some months; when, as we have seen, his views underwent a com- 

•Thompson to Webster, July 30, 1S42. MS., State Department. The 
remainder of the letter was filled with a report of English assistance to 
Mexico against Texas, and a statement of the close alliance between the 
two nations. 

"Thompson to Webster, Jan. 30, 1843. Webster MSS., Library of Con- 
gress. For any actual foundation for this despatch, see Adams, British 
Interests, etc., 237-240. Thompson still held his opinion in 1846. Recol- 
lections, 235. 

"The Quarterly, XVIIT. 32-34. Tyler's biographer, however, gives as 
chief reason for the president's desire to bring about this tripartite agree- 
ment the report of the English mortgage. Tyler's Tyler, II, 260. 

iWi7es' Register, LXIII, 366. 

^"Ibid., 384. 



86 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

plete change and for the moment he hoped that an English-Mexi- 
can Avar might thrown the province into the lap of the United 
States.^* Following Thompson's resignation as minister, Ben- 
jamin E. Green, Shannon, and Duff Green, from time to time 
issued similar Avarnings to those Webster had received, and of 
<vhich we have just spoken. 

English mortgage. — Mexico, cultivating friendly relations with 
England,^^ was said to have mortgaged California to that country 
for $26,000,000. The pledge expired in 1847 and, unless paid 
before that time, would result in the transfer of the country to 
Great Britain, whose control in this way would be extended not 
only over the whole of California, but eventually over Oregon as 
well.^" Donelson, on his special mission to Texas, was sufficiently 
interested in this report to inquire directly of Elliot as to its 
truth; but learned nothing of a satisfactory nature, and came to 
the conclusion that it rested on insufficient evidence. ^^ 

The Hudson's Bay Company. — Larkin, meanwhile, from Cali- 
fornia, had been doing his part by calling attention to the rapid 
encroachments of the Hudson's Bay Company, whose employees 
were trapping, cultivating land, building mills and establishing 
themselves in various ways in that country and also in Oregon. 
The San Francisco agent had asked for extensive grants of land 
upon which to settle colonists and had no intention of quitting 
the province when game became scarce. ^^ These statements, suffi- 
ciently grave in themselves, received further emphasis from a let- 

■-^The Quarterly, XVIII, 34-35. 

^^B. E. Green to Secretary of State, April 8, 1844. MS., State Depart- 
/nent. 

"Duff Green to Calhoun, Oct. 28th. Calhoun Correspondence, 979. 
Green added that the British consul general in Mexico was agent for the 
English company, and advised the State Department to secure a copy of 
the mortgage deed either through the Mexican or London legations. It 
could be had for $1500 or $2000 in Mexico. It should be remembered that 
Green was Calhoun's confidential agent. 

"A. J. Donelson to Calhoun, Jan. 30, 1845. Ihid., 1024. 

'^Larkin to Calhoun, June 20, 1844. MS., State Department; same to 
same, June 24th, and August 18th. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 9. 
Larkin added he had seen a report in the paper that England might pur- 
chase California. For the reply to these despatches see Crallg to Larkin, 
Oct. 25. Larkin MSS., II, No."^ 233. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 87 

ter of Henry A. Pierce, of Boston, read on the floor of the house 
about this time.^^ 

Report of Santa Anna's dealings with England.— But even more 
disquieting reports came from Shannon. Santa Anna had been 
captured but a few days before by the forces of the opposition, and 
important documents were found on his person. Certain of these 
had been published by the new administration to discredit him 
with the people, and the rest laid before the Mexican Congress in 
secret session. "From a portion of this correspondence," concluded 
Shannon's despatch, 

the fact has been disclosed that a negotiation was going on be- 
tween President Santa Anna and the English Minister for the 
sale and purchase of the two Californias — That portion of the cor- 
respondence relating to this subject has not been published in the 
papers, but it has been laid before Congress in secret session and 
the pendency of such a negotiation may be relied upon as true — 
The English Minister has no doubt in this matter acted under in- 
structions from his government; it may therefore be assumed that 
it is the settled policy of the English government to acquire the 
two Californias. You are aware that the English creditors have 
now a mortgage on them for twenty-six millions.-'* 

For the present, however. Shannon thought the designs of Eng- 
land had received a set back in the overthrow of Santa Anna; and 
as the hew administration were making political capital out of the 
disclosures regarding California, they would not themselves dare 
favor a measure similar to that of their discredited opponent. 
The report of Santa Anna's secret dealings received considerable 
publicity, both in this country and in Europe ;^^ but exactly what 
foundation there was in fact for the rumor is not clear. It was 
about this time that Forbes, the British vice-consul at IMonterey, 
was submitting his suggestion for an English protectorate through 

"Ap. Cong. Gloie. 28 Cong., 1 sess., p. 226. 

^''Shannon to Calhoun. MS., State Department. 

"Raymond (Texas Legation at Washington) to Allen. Feb. 21. 1845. 
Garrison, Tex. Dip. Cor., II, 364, in Am. His. Ass'n Report. 1908, II. See 
also extract from Paris Presse asserting that in the capture of Santa Anna 
had been revealed "one of the vastest projects which the undermining 
ambition of Great Britain ever conceived," in attempting to secure Cali- 
fornia. Charleston Mercury, March 10, 1845. The article was copied in 
the London papers without comment and denied in Parliament by both 
Peel and Palmerston. Ibid., April 7th and 24th. 



88 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

Barron ;^'^ and it may have been that some correspondence passed 
between the British representatives in Mexico and Santa Anna. 

Polk's suspicions. — It was with such reports, as have already 
been cited^ from Thompson, Green, Larkin and Shannon in the 
official files of the state department, and with even wilder rumors 
in the air, that Polk came to the President's office. Every outside 
influence, moreover, tended to make the new executive suspicious 
of England's policy. The unsettled Oregon boundary ; the mutual 
spirit of animosity shown by the press of the two countries;-' the 
whole western attitude and his schooling at the hands of Andrew 
Jackson; above all, the course of Great Britain with regard to 
Texas ;^* prepared him to accept the stories of English designs 
upon California with little hesitation. 

McNamarra project. — Fresh reports, also, soon strengthened this 
belief. On May 13, the confidential agent, Wm. S. Parrott, wrote 
that the British fleet in the Placific had been reenforced for the 
rumored purpose of taking and holding California in case of war 
between Mexico and the United States, using as an excuse for the 
action, the protection of English citizens in their mortgage claims 
on that province.^^ Later, Parrott said that the force bound from 
Mexico to California, to subdue the insurrection against Miehel- 
torena, was to be commanded by an officer educated in France; 
and that the influence of this commander in California, according 
to reliable information, was to be used to the advantage of that 
nation by the French legation in Mexico. At any rate, said Par- 
rott, "he certainly takes with him a large number of Frenchmen 
for some reason or other. "^^ 

"For Forbes's plan and Aberdeen's reply see Adams, British Interests, 
242-250. 

^Buchanan, in a speech on the Oregon question, March 12, 1844, said 
that the whole press of England, irrespective of class or party, had teemed 
with abuse of all things American for two years, until the mind of the 
British public was thoroughly inflamed against the United States. Ap. 
Cong. Glohe, 28 Cong., 1 sess., p. 350. 

"For Polk's fear of English influence in Texas see his private corre- 
spondence as follows: Yell to Polk, March 26, 1845; same to same, May 
5th; Donelson to Polk, March 19th; Wickliff"e to Polk, June 3, 4. Polk 
MSS.; Polk to Jackson. April 27th. Jackson MSS. 

^Parrott to Buchanan, May 13, 1845. MS., State Department. Also 
for report that England was creating an unfriendly attitude in Mexico 
against the United States, see Shannon to Calhoun, March 27th. Ibid. 

^Parrott to Buchanan, Aug. 5, 1845. MS., State Department. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 89 

A few days afterward, however, the American agent had occa- 
sion to change his Frenchmen into Irishmen, writing that the ex- 
pedition had been delayed for lack of funds; while with it, "a 
young Irish Piriest by the name of McNamarrah" was preparing 
to leave for California for the purpose of introducing Irish immi- 
grants.^^ In this, it should be remarked, Parrott was not build- 
ing wholly on his imagination.^* 

LarJcin's despatch of July 10th. — In the fall, more emphatic de- 
spatches reached the state department. On October 11, Buchanan 
received a communication from Parrott which said that the least 
news coming from California excited great interest in English 
circles, especially among the members of the British legation.^^ 
On the same day a despatch, written July 10, reached Washington 
from the American consul at Monterey. This communication of 
Larkin's deserves special mention. In it he stated that the Hud- 
son's Bay Company^** had furnished the native Californians with 
arma and ammunitions to expel the Mexican governor, General 
Micheltorena,^^ in the preceding year. At the time his despatch 
was being written, however, Larkin said. 

There is no doub't in this country, but the troops now expected 
here in September [from Mexico] are sent at the instigation of 
the British Government under the plea that the American settlers 
in California want to revolutionize the country; it is rumored 
that two English houses in Mexico have become bound to the new 
general to accept his drafts as funds to pay his troops for eighteen 
months.^2 

"Same to same, Aug. 16th. Ibid. 

^McNamarra's project was laid before Bankhead in 1844. He took only 
a "mild interest" in it at the time. Adams, British Interests, 253. Her- 
rera, however, approved of it, though Paredes objected to the arrangement. 
Securing the consent of the Mexican government, McNamarra came to 
California where the assembly voted him a grant of 3000 leagues on July 
4 — an act which showed "a new feature in English policy, and a new 
method of obtaining California." Larkin to State Department, Aug. 18 
and 24, 1846, Official Correspondence, II, Nos. 54-56. Benton and Fre- 
mont made much of this "McNamarra Scheme" as justifying the latter's 
participation in the Bear Flag Revolt. Bancroft devotes considerable 
space to tliis phase of the project. 

=»Parrott to Buchanan, Sept. 2, 1845. MS., State Department. 

'"See also Larkin to Secretary of State, June 5th. MS., State Depart- 
ment — received Sept. 16th. 

'^The revolt here referred to was that against Micheltorena. 

'^Larkin to Secretary of State, July 10, 1845. MS., State Department; 
also Larkin, Official Correspondence, II, No. 25. The apparent inconsis- 



90 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

Of even greater importance was the information in the same 
despatch that both France and England had appointed salaried 
consuls in California, neither of whom had any apparent commer- 
cial business. The British representative,^^ especially, was a fit 
subject for suspicion. His ranch was located forty miles inland; 
he had permission to carry on his private business, while receiving 
pay from the government; as there was no English commerce his 
appointment became a mere blind; and finally, he was concerned 
in the affairs of the "gigantic" Hudson's Bay Company. 

The effect exerted by tliese despatches upon the policy of the 
administration will be considered later. It remains for the present 
to note further communications that were well calculated to arouse 
a like suspicion against England. 

Slidell, when upon his mission to Mexico, at first was unable 
to learn "anj^hing that would authorize the belief that attempts 
are making by any European Power, to obtain a cession of any 
territory on the Pacific Coast," though the late arrival of a son of 
Sir Robert Peel, as bearer of despatches, from the British fleet in 
the Pacific, had caused some comment.^* Some ten or twelve days 
later, however, Slidell was writing for instructions as to the course 
he should pursue regarding the British mortgage on Mexican ter- 
ritory, in case a treaty was negotiated. The same despatch like- 

tency of charging the Hudson's Bay Company with aiding in the expulsion 
of Micheltorena and the British government with endeavoring to reinstate 
him is explained by the facts. In 1844 the British vice-consul, Forbes, 
was approached by the California leaders to know if his government would 
establish a protectorate over them in case they declared their independence. 
Forbes forwarded the information to the home government, both he and 
the consul, Barron, at Tepic, favoring the project. Upon the reply of 
the home office declining to have anything to do with it, however, "they 
transferred their support to the Mexican government, believing that Mexi- 
can control would be more favorable to British interests than an inde- 
pendent government in California." Adams, British Interests, 251. As 
early as 1842 Sir Greorge Simpson wrote to Sir John H. Pelly (for the 
eyes of the government) that a single English cruiser on the coast with 
assurance of protection from Great Britain, would be sufficient for a 
declaration of independence on the part of the Californians and the estab- 
lishment of a British protectorate. Am. Hist. Review, XIV, 89. 

"For the activities of Alexander Forbes, see Adams, British Interests, 
234-264, passim. On the other hand, Larkin seems to have forgotten that 
he himself urged a French consul's appointment. Larkin to Monsieur 
Gauden, Havre de Gras, April 21, 1844. Larkin MSS., II, No. 79. 

»*Slidell to Buchanan, Dec. 17, 1845. MS., State Department. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 91 

wise carried information that England was hindering his recep- 
tion by the Mexican government.^^ 

The rumored 7n anarchy. — About this time, also, reports came to 
the administration of a plan to establish a monarchy in Mexico 
and call in a European prince — an arrangement necessarily fatal 
to Polk's purpose of securing California. John Black, the Ameri- 
can consul at Mexico City, first called attention to this danger, 
saying that it was commonly reported that the revolution then in 
progress had such an end in view. Eeliable persons had informed 
him that agents were in Europe soliciting a foreign prince; while 
France, England and Spain, having countenanced the plan, were 
being looked to as the backers and sustainers of the new monarch.^^ 

Shortly after the receipt of Black's despatch, a private letter, 
equally positive in tone, came to Polk from the American am- 
bassador at London. "It need not surprise you to discover at no 
distant day," wrote McLane, "that a favorite scheme with the lead- 
ing Powers of Europe is to compose the Mexican trouble by giving 
her a Monarchial form of . government and supplying the monarch 
from one of their own families."^^ 

Slidell soon added his voice to this testimony of Black and Mc- 
Lane, calling attention to the fact that El Tiempo, the official or- 
gan of the Paredes administration, had come out openly in favor 
of the monarchy.^^ Three weeks later, the consul at Vera Cruz 
wrote that the Mexican government was bent, beyond question, 
on putting the plan into operation, in order to secure foreign in- 
tervention against the United States. ^^ These reports later called 
out a reply from Buchanan to Slidell stating that this report had 

^Slidell to Buchanan, Dec. 29, 1845. lUd. 

»«Black to Buchanan, Dec. 30. lUd. 

»^McLane to Polk, Jan. 17, 1846. Polk MSS. The plan was expected, 
McLane added, to arouse opposition in Europe to Polk's message and 
strengthen England in the Oregon controversy. 

^^Slidell to Buchanan, Feb. 2, 1846. MS., State Department. 

^Dimond to Buchanan, Feb. 21. Hid. The following quotation shows 
the basis upon which these reports rested: "Bankhead's intei-est . . . 
ivas greatly aroused by proposals . . . unoflBcially made by Mexicans 
of prominence that a solution of Mexican difficulties might be found in 
an overthrow of the republic and an establishment of a monarchy under 
A European prince. Bankhead was much attracted by the idea and Aber- 
deen expressed friendly interest." E. D. Adams, "English Interest in 
California," Am. Hist. Review, XIV, 761, note. This note does not appear 
in the chapter on California in the author's "British Interests and Activi- 
ties in Texas." 



92 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

been corroborated from other sources, but implying a doubt as to 
its foundation.*** However, Slidell was to ferret the matter out, 
for it was a thing the American people could by no means permit. 
Later, Slidell wrote that a feeling favorable to the United States 
was arising among those in Mexico who opposed the idea; and in 
a second despatch outlined the difficulties its supporters had to 
overcome.*^ Still, he advised prompt and decisive measures on 
the part of the authorities at Washington to forestall its success. 
Two days after the receipt of this communication, the president 
consulted with Senator Benton as to what these measures 
should be.*^ 

Agitation in the press. — While the reports of England's designs 
upon California, and the establishment of a Mexican monarchy 
were reaching the state department, the same accounts were find- 
ing their way into the public prints. Larkin's despatch of July 
10, in somewhat stronger form, was sent by him to the Nev: York 
Sun, and from that journal copied by many of the other news- 
papers.*^ In it only two alternatives were given — either Cali- 
fornia, with all its resources and the mile-wide bay of San Fran- 
cisco, must belong to the United States or pass into the hands of 
France or England. With California also went the possession of 
Oregon. "Why they are in service," said the published despatch 
in referring to the recently appointed foreign consuls against 
which the state department had likewise been warned, "their gov- 
ernment best knows, and Uncle Sam will know to his cost" 

"The exhaustless wealth of the mines of Mexico, the broad and 
fertile acres of the Californias will fall a prey to British rapacity 
should there be none to interpose," was the opinion of the New 
Orleans Picayune.*'^ And even the staid American Review lifted 

"Buchanan to Slidell, March 13, 1846. MS., State Department. Rumor, 
eaid Buchanan, had already indicated the Spanish Prince Henry, son of 
Francisco de Paula, and the rejected suitor of Queen Isabella. 

'"Slidell to Buchanan, March 1 and 18. MS., State Department. See 
also Bancroft to McLane, March 29 in M. A. D. Howe, Life and Letters of 
George Bancroft (New York. Charles Scribner & Sons. 1908), I, 282. 

"Polk, Diary, 1, 326. 

"Larkin to New York Sun, July 31, 1845. Larkin MSS.. Ill, No. 235. 
Keprinted in Niles' Register, LXIX, 204; Daily Union, Oct. 21; Charleston 
Mercury, Oct. 22. 

^Picayune, Sept. 27. 1845; see also Daily Union, June 16; Richmond 
Enquirer, Jan. 26, 1846. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 93 

up a voice of warning against English aggressions and in favor 
of American occupation.*^ The report of the proposed monarchy 
likeveise received due publicity and unfavorable comment.*'' While 
the bitter attacks of the London Times against the United States 
as a nation of land-grabbers, and the repeated calls it made upon 
the British government to secure California or at least prevent its 
acquisition by the Americans, aroused no little indignation.*^ 

Effect upon the policy of the administration. — The importance 
of the question of foreign interference in California lies not fo 
much, however, in its effect upon the popular mind as upon the 
policy pursued by the government. On September 16, when con- 
sidering the instructions for Slidell, Polk records that even the 
fact of his mission was to be kept secret, lest British or French 
influences should thwart its purpose. And from this time on 
the numerous despatches on the subject of foreign interference, of 
which mention has been made, figured prominently in the admin- 
istration's course of action. 

The importance especially of Larkin's communication of July 
10 in this connection has never been duly appreciated. Three 
days after its receipt, Buchanan wrote privately to McLane regard- 
ing the Oregon controversy, mentioning several reasons why the 
compromise measure would meet defeat in the senate. The chief 
of these he gave as follows : 

The disposition of the two nations [France and England] to 
meddle in the concern of this continent, the strong suspicions en- 
tertained that they are now intriguing both in Mexico and Cali- 
fornia in relation to the latter : — ^all these have conspired to ex- 
cite American feeling against Great Britain to a very high pitch. 
By advices from Monterey of the 10th of July last, we are in- 
formed of the arrival of a British and French consul in upper 
California without any ostensible commercial business — [Here fol- 
lowed the substance of Larkin's despatch, with a considerable por- 
tion of it in direct quotation] ... I need not say to you 
what a flame would be kindled throughout the Union should Great 

*^ American Review, Jan., 1846. 

*^Picayune, Jan. 10, 1846; Ihid., March 7 (extract from Baltimore Amer- 
ican) ; Daily TJnio7i, March 10th and 16th. 

"'SHles' Register, LXVIII, 211; LXIX, 147; Richmond Enquirer, Sept. 
12, 1845; Daily Union, Sept. 8, Oct. 23; New York Journal of Commerce, 
March 24, etc. 



94 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

Britain obtain a cession of California from Mexico or attempt to 
take possession of that province.*'-* 

As affairs were in such a state, Buchanan further advised McLane 
that he himself thought the time too critical for urging the Ore- 
gon question, although the president was determined to give the 
year's notice.^" 

It may be mentioned in this connection, simply as a matter of 
interest, that not long before, Polk had received from Eobert Arm- 
strong, his close personal friend and newly appointed consul to 
Liverpool, a letter strongly advising him never to settle the Ore- 
gon question short of 54° unless England gave up all pretensions 
to California. "England must never have California," were his 
words, "and it seems to be advisable to make Oregon the bone of 
contention to prevent it. The whole country will sustain you on 
Oregon."^^ 

England and Larlcins appointment. — In addition to Buchanan's 
letter to McLane, the administration's fear of foreign interference 
was similarly shown in the instructions sent to Larkin and Slidell. 
Larkin's appointment as confidential agent has often been con- 
demned as an act smacking of international dishonor. Yet it 
should be remembered that Polk had every reason to believe that 
an English and a French agent were likewise masquerading under 
the guise of consul for the purpose of influencing the political 
future of California. 

In the instructions to Larkin, tlierefore, we should naturally 
expect much space to be devoted to the subject of British and 
French designs. ^'^- And we are not disappointed. The commer- 
cial interests of the United States demand that the American con- 
sul shall "exert the greatest vigilance in discovering and defeating 
any attempts which may be made by foreign governments to ac- 
quire a control" over California. The president cannot "view 

^'Buchanan to McLane, Oct. 14, 1845. Polk MSS., Library of Congress; 
also a copy in the Polk MSS., of the Lennox Collection of the Library of 
the City of New York. The letter does not appear in the published writ- 
ings of Buchanan by Moore. 

"For Buchanan's endeavor to persuade Polk to assume a more moderate 
attitude, see Polk's Diary, I, 62-65. 

"Armstrong to Polk, Aug. 4. Polk MSS. 

''-The same instructions were entrusted (probably) to Gillespie and 
Frgmont. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 95 

with indifference the transfer of California to Great Britain or any 
other European Power." European colonization on the North 
American constinent must cease, as it can only work hurt to the 
United States and equal harm to the nations attempting it. The 
Californians, therefore, are to be warned of the danger of such 
domination to their peace and prosperity. They are to let events 
take their course along political lines unless Mexico endeavors to 
transfer them to Great Britain or France; then they are to resist 
with force — and the United States will assist them. Lastly, Lar- 
kin is not to awaken "the jealousy of the British or French agents" 
by assuming other than his consular character.^^ 

England and SlidelVs instructions. — ^The instructions to Slidell, 
first drawn up on September 16, but amended after the receipt of 
Larkin's 10th of July despatch,"* laid an equally strong emphasis 
on the matter of foreign interference. One of the new minister's 
duties was "to counteract the influence of foreign Powers exerted 
against the United States in Mexico." Also — a point frequently 
lost sight of — Slidell was expected to accomplish, at that particu- 
lar time, the object for which he was sent, not merely because of 
"the wretched condition of the internal affairs of Mexico," but 
also on account of "the misunderstanding which exists between the 
Government and the Ministers of France and England."^^ 

The same determination to resist European colonization that 
had been expressed to Larkin was contained, even in a stronger 
form, in this document received by Slidell. He was instructed to 
ascertain whether Mexico proposed ceding California to France or 
England, and to take steps to prevent any such action, "so fraught 
with danger to the best interests of the United States." For if 
all the advantages of San Francisco harbor "should be turned 
against our country, by the cession of California to Great Britain 
our principal commercial rival, the consequences would be most 
disastrous."^^ 

^'Buchanan to Larkin. Buchanan, Works, VI, 275-278. It should be 
noted that Bftchanan assigned as his reasons for these warnings, etc. 
Larkin's despatch of July 10th. 

^*Tliis despatch was received Oct. 4th. 

^'For a report of this disagreement, see Parrott to Buchanan, Sept. 29 
and Oct. 4. MSS., State Department. 

'"Buchanan, Works, VI, 294 et seq. The force of this idea of foreign 
control in California is still further shown in the opening paragraph of 
the part of these instructions dealing with California. — "There is another 



96 Early Sentiment for Annexation of Calif ornia 

PolTc's re-statement of the Monroe Doctrine. — Polk, however, 
did not rest content with these secret efforts to thwart European 
influence in California. On December 2, came his first annual 
message with its enlarged affirmation of the Monroe Doctrine. 
California was not specifically mentioned in this document, but 
the wording was such as to be meaningless if applied to Oregon 
alone. This was so recognized at the time.^'^ Moreover, Polk 
told Benton definitely, while the message was in the course of 
preparation late in October, that he had California in mind as 
well as Oregon. Great Britain, he said, had her eye upon Cali- 
fornia, intending to possess it if possible; but the people of the 
United States would see that she did not. "California and the 
fine Bay of San Francisco" were to be protected from English 
aggression as well as Oregon. Like Cuba, California might re- 
main under its present owners but never pass into the hands of a 
more powerful nation.^^ 

It has sometimes been held that this application of the Mon- 
roe Doctrine was merely a bogey used by Polk to alarm the country 
and justify his subsequent course in the eyes of the nation. 
Enough, it is believed, has already been said to show the falsity of 
such a charge. Wh.en he wrote — "the people of this continent 
alone have the right to decide their own destiny. Should any 
portion of them, constituting an independent state, propose to 
unite themselves with our confederacy, this will be a question for 
them and for us to determine without any foreign interference"^'' — 
Polk desired to warn England that the United States would brook 
no interference in case the program entrusted to Larkin in Cali- 
fornia was a success, and the inhabitants sought annexation to 
this country. 

Similarly, when he announced that "no future European colony 
or dominion, shall with our consent, be planted or established on 
any part of the North American continent,""" he wished to an- 

subject of vast importance to the United States which will demand your 
particular attention. From information possessed by this department it 
is seriously to be apprehended that both Great Britain and France have 
designs upon California." 

^'Gong. Gloie, 29 Cong., 1 sess., p. 350. 

=«Polk, Diary, I, 71 (Oct. 24th). 

"^ James D. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Wash- 
ington. Gov't Printing Office. 'l896), IV, 398. 

'"Ibid., 399. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 97 

nounce clearly and distinctly to the British government that any 
attempt she might make to gain control of California would he 
opposed, with arms if necessar}^, by the United States. 

Did Polk's fear of England hasten the Mexican War? — The 
foregoing discussion, it is hoped, has shown something of the 
apprehension that existed in the mind of President Polk and 
his advisers, lest, either directly or indirectly, European influence 
should hinder the acquisition of California by the United States. 
How large a part this played in bringing on the Mexican War, 
would be interesting, but impossible, to say. In arriving at the 
effect of this apprehension, however, it should be remembered 
that Polk's attitude on all great public questions was moulded 
largely by Andrew Jackson, who had warned him against England 
both in her relation to Texas and California,^^ and that he had 
every reason to believe, and did thoroughly believe, from the re- 
ports that came from Mexico and California that European in- 
fluence was at work to defeat his purpose. He laid the blame for 
SlidelFs rejection directly at England's door.^^ And even as late 
as the outbreak of the war, his secretary of state feared that if 
England learned of his determination to acquire California, she, 
and perhaps France, would Join Mexico against the United 
States.®^ But whatever influence this may have exerted upon 
Polk's determination to commence hostilities, it surely was not 
with insincerity that he wrote after the treaty of Guadalupe 
Hidalgo, "The immense value of ceded territory does not consist 
alone in the amount of money for which the public lands may be 
sold . . . the fact that it has become a part of the Union 
and cannot be subject to European power, constitutes ample in- 
demnity for the past."*'* 

°^Ap. Cong. Glohe, 28 Cong., 1 sess., p. 445. 
''Diary, I, 337 (April 18, 1846). 
'Wiary, 1, 396-399 (May 13th). 
•^Richardson, IV, 599. 



98 Eafi-Jy Sentiment for Annexation of California 



Chapter VI 



* 



SLAVERY AND THE EARLY SENTIMENT FOR ANNEXATION 

Before bringing to a close this discussion of American interest 
in California prior to the Mexican War, a word must be said re- 
garding the idea that Polk's desire for California was prompted 
largely by his wish to extend the area of slaver}^, and that the 
acquisition of the territory itself was brought about chiefly 
through Southern efforts. Of late years, with the clearing away 
of much of the historic mist and fog, arising from the bitter con- 
troversies before the Civil War, the whole subject of slavery in 
its relation to territorial expansion is seen in a clearer and less 
distorted light. Even the annexation of Texas is coming to be 
considered chiefly as a phase of the westward progress of the 
American people and no longer a mere device of slave holding- 
states. 

To a much more marked degree, is this true of the new atti- 
tude toward the acquisition of California. Yet the charge has 
been made so frequently in one form or another that 'the South- 
erners were after bigger pens to cram with slaves' — "having ac- 
quired Texas they longed for New Mexico and California," — it 
seems well to point out a few salient facts that such writers as 
Ehodes,^ Henry Wilson,^ Jay,^ H. H. Bancroft,* Henry Cabot 
Lodge^ and other members of the older^ school of American his- 
torians, have apparently overlooked. 

One indeed has difficulty in finding any true grounds at all for 

*This does not pretend to be an adequate or exhaustive study of the 
subject. It is written only to show in a broad way why the acquisition 
of California cannot be considered a slavery measure. 

Mames Ford Rhodes, History of the United States (New York, Mac- 
millan. 1894), I. 87. 

^Henry Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Poioer in America (Boston. 
Houghton, Mifflin and Company. 1879), II, 9. 

^Jay, Revieiv of the Causes and Consequences of the Mexicati War, 107. 

'H. H. Bancroft, Works, XIIL 344. 

'Henry Cabot Lrodge, Daniel Webster (American Statesman Series), 289. 

'For a more recent writer taking this view, see H. Addington Bruce, 
Romance of American Expansion (New York. Moffat, Yard & Co, 1909), 
139. 



Early Sentiment for Annexatio-n of California 99 

the opinion of this group. Their argument, however, runs about 
as follows: The Mexican War had as its object the acquisition 
of California; it occurred during the administration of a south- 
em president, and was largely the product of his own devising; 
it was therefore fought simply to extend the area of slavery. As 
Henry Wilson expressed it in The Rise and Fall of the Slave 
Power, the "march into territory inhabited by Mexicans . . . 
meant more than 'to defend our own and the rights of Texas.' 
It could only mean, it did mean, the acquisition of more terri- 
tory, in which to establish slavery, and by which the further ex- 
tension and development of slave holding institutions could be 
promoted." 

Those who adopt this course of reasoning, however, leave out 
of consideration a most essential fact. The movement for the 
annexation of California, as we have endeavored to show, did not 
begin with the presidency of James K. Polk, nor with the out- 
break of the Mexican War. It originated more than a decade be- 
fore either of these events and by 1846 had developed such 
strength and headway that its successful culmination was merely 
a matter of time, as was even then pretty generally recognized. 
After 1846 the course of the movement was obscured bv the 
acrimonious debates over the conduct of the war, and the Wilmot 
Proviso — the latter especially precipitating a conflict of principle 
in which the south took an active and determined part. It is 
scarcely possible, however, to maintain, as some have done, that 
the pro-slavery forces originated and gave vigor to the actual 
movement for annexation, because they opposed the Wilmot Pro- 
viso. We shall save ourselves from this error if we remember that 
the question at issue from 1846 until 1850 was, after all, not so 
much one of acquisition, per se, as of method and status. We are 
not concerned at this time with the way in which California was 
secured nor with the contest as to whether it should be free ter- 
ritory or slave. Our contention is simply this, that the keen de- 
sire for Mexican territory on the Pacific, which developed among 
the American people prior to 1846 and found its gratification in 
the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, was not inspired by sectional 
issues, and in no sense deserves to be called a slavery measure. 

California as an off-set to Texas. — There are a number of rea- 
sons upon which we venture to base this assertion. In the first 



100 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

place, contrary to the generally accepted view of the matter, be- 
fore 1845 the south proposed the acquisition of California as free 
territory in order to neutralize the opposition of the north to the 
annexation of Texas. 

We have already seen that Jackson urged upon Wharton the 
necessity of including California within the limits of Texas in 
order to reconcile the commercial interests of the north and east 
to the program of annexation by giving them a harbor on the 
Pacific.^ Waddy Thompson, Calhoun's friend and political dis- 
ciple, did not expect to see slavery established in the territory 
whose acquisition he so strenuously urged, but thought the north 
would favor his project because of their commercial and fishing 
interests.^ The same idea was present in Tyler's plan of a tri- 
partite agreement when early in 1843 he wrote Webster: 

The mere recognition of Texas, would have the effect . . . 
of separating that question from California . . . and using 
up all the agitations which you anticipated. Wliereas introduced 
into the same treaty the three interests would be united and would 
satisfy all sections of the country. Texas might not stand alone 
nor would the line proposed for Oregon. Texas would reconcile 
all to the line, while California would reconcile or pacify all to 
Oregon.^ 

As late, too, as March 10, 1846, the Charleston Mercury cred- 
ited the rumored annexation of California to the Whigs as an 
offset to the annexation of Texas, and congratulated that party 
on thus endeavoring to regain popular favor. While even that 
knight errant of the anti-slavery cause, Joshua E. Giddings, seems 
to have thought of the annexation movement from beginning to 
end solely as a free soil movement. Speaking on the floor of the 
house on July 14, 1846, he charged President Polk with seeking 
the annexation, not of California, but of the Mexican states north 
of the 22d parallel in order to establish slavery in the territory 
so secured, "at the moment," as he said, "when our rapidly in- 
creasing population is flowing into Oregon and California, — when 
free states are growing up in the former and the latter gives prom- 

'The Qttarterly, XVIII, 17. 
HUd., 28. 
"lUd., 33. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 101 

ise of preparation for annexation as a counterpart of Texas 

Favorable attitude in the north. — A second reason for the be- 
lief that the annexation of California was not a slavery measure, 
is the fact that the movement found its strongest popular favor 
in the north. Most of the contemporary newspaper and magazine 
articles which advocated the acquisition of this portion of Mexi- 
can territory first appeared in New York or New England. 
Thomas 0. Larkin and other American residents of California 
were regular correspondents, not for southern newspapers, but for 
the Boston Daily Advertiser, the New York Journal of Commerce, 
and the New York Sun — the editor of the Sun, especially making 
it the settled policy of his paper to create a sentiment for an- 
nexation by publishing the most glowing accounts of California 
obtainable, and seeking to arouse public interest in other ways 
best known to members of his profession. 

In this connection it may be of passing interest to call atten- 
tion to articles that appeared in two leading American periodi- 
cals of January, 1846. One published in the American Review, 
known to its opponents as the "Text Book of the Whig Party," 
gave a complete, though somewhat exaggerated picture of the rich 
resources of California, spoke of the miserable control exercised 
by Mexico over the province, and urged its immediate annexa- 
tion to the United States, provided this could be accomplished by 
peaceful means.^^ In De Bow's Review, afterwards the most in- 
fluential journal of the south, an important place was also given 
to a discussion of California. The picture here drawn, however, 
was, in marked contrast to the glowing description of the north- 
ern writer, dreary in the extreme. California's soil was hope- 
lessly sterile and cursed with drought, while its other resources 
were so limited that the country "would never become of any great 
importance in the history of the world or advance to any con- 

"Speeches in Congress by Joshua R. Giddings (Boston and Cleveland. 
Jewett & Co. 18.53), 258-259. 

"Above, p. 242. As early as March 5, 1845, the Journal of Com- 
merce credited the Whigs with aiming to secure California in order to 
offset the popularity the Democrats had won in urging the annexation of 
Texas. See also Richmond Enquirer, Jan. 26, 1846. 



102 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

spicuoiis position, either agriculturally, commercially, or politi- 
cally."i2 

De Bow's article probably did not represent the common opin- 
ion of the south. Yet the interest with which the commercial 
states of the north regarded the future of California was unques- 
tionably greater than that of any other section of the country, with 
the possible exception of the extreme west. For it was natural 
that those who had important trade relations not merely with 
California, but with India, China, and the Sandwich Islands, be- 
side extensive whale fisheries, should of all others desire most 
eagerly a harbor and territory on the Pacific. It was for this 
reason, as much as any other, that Webster, who would scarcely 
be called the champion of slavery, considered San Francisco as 
twenty times more valuable than all Texas, and was so desirous 
of securing California while secretary of state that he even pro- 
posed to take Everett's place as ambassador to England in order 
to facilitate the adoption of the tripartite agreement. ^^ 

Character of immigration. — So far, also, as forces were at work 
locally in California to bring about a cession of the province to 
the United States, one finds the influence almost wholly of north- 
ern origin. Indeed, the charge that southern immigrants and 
southern leaders acted dishonorably in Texan affairs, can be re- 
turned (if in either case the charges are valid) with good interest 
against the north in the case of California. Lansford W. Hast- 
ings, the leader of a very ambitious scheme for independence, 
came from Connecticut, Marsh, his associate, Alfred Robinson, 
and J. T. Farnham, whose writings stimulated widespread interest 
in California throughout the United States, were also natives of 
New England ; while Abel Stearns, Larkin's confidential advisor in 
Southern California, and Larkin himself, who played such an im- 
portant part in the whole annexation movement, were from Massa- 
chusetts. Indeed it is hard to find more than one or two resident 
Americans of any prominence in California at this time who were 

"De Bow, Commercial Review, I, 65-66. "It was this article that first 
broTight De Bow into prominence and that was quoted in debate in the 
French Chamber of Deputies." H. P. Dart, in Tulane University Maga- 
zine, bound in copy of above in University of California Library. 

"The Quarterly, XVIII, 33. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 103 

not of New England origin." As for the rank and file of immi- 
grants who arrived in California up to 1846, it cannot be said that 
they came from any one section of the Union. Some were from 
the south and some from New England ; while the great majority 
were from the frontier states of the west. Many had set out 
originally for Oregon but for one reason or another had changed 
their destination to California. They were trappers, farmers, 
mechanics and laborers who thought as little of establishing slav- 
ery as of setting up a monarchial government.^'^ 

Proposed boundary lines. — One further point remains to be dis- 
cussed, which of itself precludes any idea that the desire to estab- 
lish slavery in California furnished the motive for its annexation. 
On August 6, 1835, the United States government made its first 
attempt to purchase California. Forsyth's instructions of that 
date to Butler placed, the desired line of boundary on the 37th 
parallel and expressly disclaimed any purpose of securing territory 
further south, or below the Bay of San Francisco. Something 
like a year later, Jackson offered the captured president of the 
Mexican Eepiiblic, who had been sent to Washington by the vic- 
torious Texans, three and one-half million dollars on behalf of 
the United States, for a line extending along the 38th parallel 
from the Eio Grande to the Pacific. On June 17, 1842, Webster 
instructed Thompson to secure, if possible, territory on the Pacific 
in return for the American claims against Mexico. The main ob- 
ject of the negotiations, according to the despatch, was to secure 
the harbor of San Francisco, although other territory might be 
added. Later, this same purpose was expressed in the terms of 
the tripartite agreement forwarded to Edward Everett at London. 
On Nov. 8, 1845, Secretary of State Buchanan sent to Slidell, 
Polk's confidential Mexican agent, his official instructions, by 
which he was empowered to offer the Mexican government some- 
thing over $25,000,000 for a line extending west from the south- 
ern boundary of New Mexico, or "for any line that should in- 

"Bancroft, Pioneer Register- and Index. In a list of those of any promi- 
nence in California prepared by Larkin for the State Department, nine 
were from NeAv England, two from New York, one from Ohio, one from 
Maryland, and three unspecified. 

"Larkin to State Department, June 15, 1846 (Description of California 
in Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 94-96) ; Sutter to Larkin, July 15, 1846. 
Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 220. 



104 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

elude Monterey within the territory ceded to the United States." 
If this could not be obtained, he was to offer $20,000,000 for a 
'line commencing at any point on the Western line of New Mex- 
ico and running due West, so as to include the Bay and Harbor 
of San Francisco.^" 

It is surely a puzzling problem, why, if the acquisition of Cali- 
fornia owed its origin to slavery, these official instructions for 
its purchase, constituting all that were issued between 18'35 and 
the outbreak of the Mexican War, without exception should have 
placed the desired line of boundary above, or only slightly below. 
the 36° 30' parallel, where under no circumstances could slavery 
hope to exist. 

Southern opposition to President Folic. — Up to 1846, therefore, 
the matter of acquiring California, both in the province itself and 
throughout the United States, can scarcely be considered as a slav- 
ery, or even a sectional measure. With the outbreak of the Mexican 
War and the bitter controversy arising over the Wilmot Proviso a few 
months later, the entire aspect of affairs was changed, and 
the subject becomes too complicated to be susceptible of ade- 
quate treatment in this place. And yet even from this time on 
there is certainly no such clear sectional division on the question 
as many writers of a past generation would have us believe. On 
the contrary, it found its advocates as well as its opponents both 
in the north and in the south. It was Alexander Stephens of 
Georgia who introduced a resolution on January 22, 1847, in the 
house, that no portion of Mexican territory should be acquired as 
the result of the war; while Berrien of the same state attempted 
to secure the passage of a like resolution in the senate as an 
amendment to the three million bill, some ten days later. ^^ 

"I say in my humble judgment and speaking as a southern 
senator representing a southern state," said Berrien on this sub- 
ject, "that the duty of the south — the interests of the south — the 
safety of the south — demands that we should oppose ourselves to 
any and every acquisition of territory ."^^ Badger, of North Caro- 

"This despatch to Slidell, as well as the other references to boundary 
just cited, have received due notice elsewhere in this discussion. 

"Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 sess., pp. 240, 310. Ewing of Tennessee intro- 
duced a similar measure. Ibid., p. 230. 

^Ibid., p. 330. See also Von Hoist. Political and Constitutional History 
of the United States, III, 303. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 105 

lina, echoed Berrien's statement and denied that the people of his 
state desired an addition of territory from Mexico to any consid- 
erable extent.^^ Butler, of South Carolina, cared only for the 
port of San Francisco and rejoiced that this lay above the line of 
the Missouri Compromise.^" Toombs was opposed to taking "an 
inch" of Mexican territory. ^^ 

In his own party, also, Polk found his strongest opponents to 
be southern men. Of the twelve Democrats opposing the war 
resolution in the house, eleven came from the south.^^ Calhoun 
and his followers were of course against the president, and cared 
so little for California that they were willing to imperil its ac- 
quisition for the sake of discrediting the administration.^^ 

Polk's views. — Turning to Polk's own conception of slavery in its 
relation to California, we shall find it, also, entirely different from 
what some writers have led us to believe. Though Polk wanted 
the line of boundary to run somewhat farther south,^* Slidell's 
instructions laid emphasis only upon the possession of San Fran- 
cisco; and it was this harbor, and not a new area for slavery, that 
was considered "all important to the United States."^^ An added 
proof of the lack of sectional bias in Polk's efforts to sec ure _ the 
territory is shown by the fact that when he wished to send a regi- 
ment, whose members should eventually become citizens of Cali- 
fornia, he chose New York as the field for enrollment and not 
one of the southern states as he might well have done.^^ 

"Ap. Cong. Olole, 30 Cong., 1 sess., pp. 121-122. See also Glole, 29 
Cong.. 2 sess., p. 338. 

^°Globe, 29 Cong., 1 sess., p. 448. 

^Gloie, 29 Cong., 2 sess., p. 141. 

-'Ap. Globe, Ibid., pp. 412-413. 

"Calhoun's attitude is seen best in his correspondence during the period. 
He feared lest Polk should attempt to seize the whole of Mexico. Polk 
asserted that Calhoun was almost indifferent at this time to the estab- 
lishment of slavery in California. Diary, II, 283-284. For the further 
division in the south against the president's policy, see the Charleston 
Mercury of Feb. 10, 1847. 

^Diary, I, 34-35. The line suggested by Polk ran about on the 32a 
parallel. 

^Slidell's instructions already cited. 

^Marcy to Col. J. D. Stevenson, June 26, 1847. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 sess., 

p. 809. The men were to be of "good habits" and "various pursuits" who 

would remain as citizens when the war was over. Tliey left New York 

October 26, arriving in San Francisco March 6, 1847. Three hundred of 

the regiment were still living in California in 1867. Cronise, Natural 
Wealth of California, 54-55. 



106 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

The president's own words, however, unless we are to believe 
him absolutely insincere, best explain his position. He regarded 
the Wilmot proviso as "a, mischievous and foolish amendment"; 
and believed that slavery should in no way be connected with the 
peace negotiations with Mexico, or with the war. Those who in- 
sisted upon joining the two called forth his condemnation, as 
working ruin to the country. ^^ 

His own plan for the settlement of the question was stated re- 
peatedly in his Diary, and can in no way be construed as favor- 
ing the south against the north. In referring to a visit from 
Senator Crittenden, the Whig senator from Kentucky, to whom 
he had spoken of securing New Mexico and California as indem- 
nity, he wrote, 

I told him I deprecated the agitation of the slavery question in 
Congress, and though a South-Western man and from a slave- 
holding state as well as himself I did not desire to acquire a more 
Southern Territory than that which I had indicated, because I did 
not desire by so doing to give occasion for the agitation of a 
question which might serve to endanger the Union itself. I told 
him the question would probably never be a practical one if we 
acquired New Mexico and California because there would be but 
a narrow ribbon of territoi-y south of the Missouri Compromise 
line of 36° 30' and in it slavery would probably never exist. ^^ 

Exactly why Polk should send Slidell to Mexico, appoint a 
confidential agent in California, offer twenty-five millions of dol- 
lars, and perhaps go to war for the purpose of securing a "nar- 
row ribbon of territory" in which to establish an abstract slavery, 
does not clearly appear. So far from being an ardent champion 
of the south, on the contrary, the president was far more open 
to the criticism of his opponents that he was favoring the north. ^^ 

^'Diary. 11. 75 (August 10, 1846) ; TUd., 305 (Jan. 4. 1847). 

"^Diary, II, 350. Polk had expressed the same idea to David Wilmot 
ilUd.. 289) and to Calhonn (p. 283). as well as to others. He had 
favored the extension of the same line in the annexation of Texas (Ctirtis, 
Buchanan, 1, 580). He thought if this plan were adopted in settling the 
controversy over California and New Mexico, "harmony would be restored 
to the Union and the danger of forming geographical parties avoided." 
Diary, June 24, 1848. 

=*Charleston Mercury, Feb. 17, 1847. A rumor had arisen that Polk 
would not negotiate for territory south of 36° 30' If this were true, 
said the writer, the south would do well to face the issue at once "while 
our men have arms in their hands." 

Calhoun considered Polk as his direct opponent, and classed him with 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of Californi'd 107 

The larger part of the territory, and the only part considered of 
much value, lay ahove the Missouri Compromise line.^° Though 
refusing to have anything to do with the Wilmot Proviso, Polk 
expressed a willingness, even against southern opposition, to sign 
a bill prohibiting slavery in Oregon.^^ And when urged by Cal- 
houn to appoint southern men to control the government in Cali- 
fornia and New Mexico, he declined to commit himself.^^ 

In the complete bewilderment with which the president saw the 
injection of the slavery question into the debates on the acquisi- 
tion of California; and in the middle ground he occupied between 
the extremists both of the north and of the south,^^ one sees how 
sincerely he regarded the measure as national and not sectional 
in scope. We may perhaps blame Polk for failing to perceive that 
his desire for empire would inevitably bring the great issues of 
slavery before the American people. But we can scarcely say he 
had anything less than the interest of the whole nation at heart. 
Like Jackson he was more the product of the west than of the 
south, and he looked through the eyes neither of Calhoun nor of 
Adams, but of Jackson. He was not sectional, and if he over- 
looked the significance of slavery in its bearing upon California, 
it was because his thoughts ran to national greatness. His ob- 
ject was not to secure njigger pens to cram with slaves,' but to 
give to the United States wide boundaries and the mastery of the 
Pacific. 

the "most rabid of the \Aniigs" when endeavoring to secure the adoption 
of his "Address of the Southern Delegates ... to their constituents." 
Calhoun to Mrs. T. G. Clemson, Jan. 24, 1849. Correspondence, p. 761, 
and note. 

^"Daily Union, Feb. 19, 1847 (Denial of a charge of sectionalism against 
Polk). 

^Diary, III (entry for August 8, 1848). 

''Ibid, (entry for July 16, 1848). 

^'On Jan. 22, 1847, he wrote, "Even the question of slavery is thrown 
into Congress and agitated in the midst of a foreign war for political 
purposes. It is brought forward at the north by a few ultra Northern 
members to advance the prospects of their favorite [for president]. No 
sooner is it introduced than a few ultra Southern members are manifestly 
well satisfied that it has been brought forward, because by seizing upon 
it they hope to array a Southern party in favour of their favorite candi- 
date for the presidency. There is no patriotism on either side, it is a 
most wicked agitation that can end in no good and must produce infinite 
mischief." {Ibid., II, 348.) See also page 340 . . . "they are en- 
gaged in discussing the abstract question of slavery, and gravely consider- 
ing whether it shall exist in a territory which we have not yet acquired 
and may never acquire from Mexico. The presidential election of 1848 
has evidently much to do with this factious state of things." 



108 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

BIBLTOGRAPHYi 
Manuscript Material 

A. Of Major Importance 

Bancroft Collection : 

Larkin, Thomas 0., Official Correspondence, 1844-1846. 
Larkin, Thomas 0.. Private Correspondence, 1842-1846. 

Department of State : 

Despatches: England, to and from. 1840-1846. 

Despatches : Mexico, to and from, consular and diplomatic, 1829- 
1846. 

Library of Congress: 

Jackson Manuscripts (chronologically arranged, one portfolio to 
each year, otherwise unclassified or catalogued). 

Polk Manuscripts, (chronologically arranged, one portfolio to 
each year, otherwise unclassified or catalogued). 

B. Of Minor Importance 

Bancroft Collection : 

Alvarado, Juan B., Historia de California. 5 vols. 

Belden, Josiah, Historical Statement. 

Bidwell, John, California, 1841-8. 

Castro, Manuel, Documentos para la Historia de California. 2 
vols. 

Morris, Albert J., Diary of a Crazy Man, or an Account of the 
Graham Affair. 

Savage, Thomas, Documentos para la Historia de California. 4 
vols. 

Swasey, W. F., Statement. 

Vallejo, M. G., Documentos para la Historia de California. 35 
vols. 

Library of Congress : 

Van Buren Manuscripts, 1837-1836. 
Webster Manuscripts, 1840-1843. 

'Thronorhout the text, wherever reference is made for the first time to 
any publication, the name of the publisher, together with the date and 
place of publication will be found in a footnote. It seems inadvisable, 
therefore, to ?epeat these in the Bibliography. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 109 

Governmental Publications 

American State Papers, Miscellaneous, TI. 

Annals of Congress, XXXVII, XL. 

Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 3<S Congress, 1st session; 
29 Congress, 2nd session: 30 Congress, ]st session. 

Congressional Globe, 29 Congress, 1st session; 29 Congress, 2nd 
session; 30 Congress, 1st session. 

House Executive Documents, 24 Congress, 2nd session, no. 35; 
25 Congress, 1st session, no. 42; 27 Congress, 3d session, no. 166; 
29 Congress, 2nd session, no. 19. 

Reports of Committees, 25 Congress, 3d session, no. 101. 

Pichardson, James D., A compilation of the Letters and Mes- 
sages of the Presidents, 1789-1897. 10 vols. 

Diaries, Personal Narratives, Published Correspondence 

Adams, Charles F. (Editor), Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 
with portions of his Diary from. 1 795 to 1848. 12 vols. 

Benton, Thomas H., Thirty Years' View. 2 vols. 

Dana, Eichard H., Two Years Before the Mast. 

Farnham, Thomas Jefferson, Life and Adventures in California 
and Scenes in the Pacific. 

Fremont, John C, Memoirs of my Life. 1 vol. 

Fremont, John C, Peport of the Exploring Expedition to the 
Eockv Mountains in 1842, and to Oregon and California in the 
jears' 1843-44. 

Garrison, George P., Diplomatic Correspondence of the Eepublic 
of Texas, I (Annual Eeport of the Ainerican Historical Associa- 
tion, 1907, II). 

Giddings, Joshua B., Speeches in Congress. 

Hastings, Lansford W., Emigrants' Guide to Oregon and Cali- 
fornia. 

Howe, M. A. D., Life and Letters of George Bancroft. 2 vols. 

Jameson, J. Franklin (Editor), Correspondence of John C. Cal- 
houn (Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 
1899, II). 

Moore, John Bassett (Editor), The Works of James Buchanan, 
12 vols. 

Pattie, James Ohio, Personal Narrative. 

Quaiffe, Milo M. (Editor), The Diary of James K. Polk during 
his Presidency, 1845 to 1849. 4 vols. 

Eobinson, Alfred, Life in California. 

Simpson^ Sir George. Narrative of a Voyage around the World 
during the years 1841 and 1842. 2 vols. 

Thompson, Waddy, Eecollections of Mexico. 



110 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 

Tyler, Lyon G., Letters and Times of the Tylers. 3 vols. 

Thwaites, "Reuben Gr. (Editor), Early Western Travels, 1748- 
1846. 31 vols. 

Webster, Daniel, Writings and Speeches. 18 vols. 

Wilkes, Lieutenant Charles, Narrative of the United States Ex- 
ploring Expedition during the years 1838-42. 5 vols. 

Newspapers and Periodicals 

A. Contemporary Publications 

American Register, or General Repository of History, Politics, 
and Science, III. 

American Review, January, 1846. 

Charleston Mercury, 1844-6. 

DeBow, Commercial Review, January, 1846. 

Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, 1846. 

London Athenaeum, 1845-6. 

London Illustrated News, 1845-6. 

Missouri Republic, 1827. 

New Orleans Dailv Picavune, 1844-6. 

New York Herald] 1844-6. 

New York Journal of Commerce, 1844-6. 

New York Sun, 1844-6. 

North American Review, January, 1846. 

Niles' National Register, 1817-46. 

Richmond Enquirer, 1844-6. 

Washington Daily Union, 1844-46. 

B. Later Publications 

American Historical Re\aew, XIV, XVI. 
Century Magazine, XVIII, XIX. 

Historical Society of Southern California Publications, III. 
Johns Hopkins L^niversity Studies in Historical and Political 
Science, VIII. 

Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History, I, no. 5. 
San Jose Pioneer, 1879-1881. 
Southwestern Historical Quarterl}^, XIV. 

General Works 

Adams, Ephraim Douglas, British Interests and Activities in 
Texas. 

Bancroft, Hubert Howe, Works. 39 vols. 

Bigelow, John, Memoirs of the Life and Public Service of John 
Charles Fremont. 



Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 111 

Boume, Edward Gaylord, Essays in Historical Criticism. 

"Bnice, H. Addington, Roinance of American Expansion. 

Chittenden, Hiram Martin. The History of the American Fur 
Trade of the Far West. 3 vols. 

Crane, William Carey, Life and Literary Remains of Sam Hous- 
ton of Texas. 

Curtis, George Tichnor, Life of Daniel AYebster. 2 vols. 

Davis, William Heath, Sixty Years in California. 

Forbes, Alexander, California : A History of Upper and Lower 
California. 

Green, Duif, Facts and Suggestions. 

Greenhow, Robert, History of Oregon and California. 

Jav, William, A Review of the Causes and Consequences of the 
^AFexican War. 

Jones. Anson, The Republic of Texas. 

Laut, Agnes C, Vikings of the Pacific. 

Lodge, Henry Cabot, Daniel Webster. 

McMaster, John Bach, History of the People of the United 
States from the Revolution to the Civil War. 7 vols. 

Reeves, Jes^e S.. American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk. 

Rhodes, James Ford, History of the United States from the 
Compromise of 1850. 7 vols. 

Richman, Irving B., California under Spain and Mexico. 

Rives, John Loekhart, The United States and Mexico, 1821- 
18^8. 2 vols. 

Schouler, James, History of the United States. 6 vols. 

Tullidge, Edward W.,' History of Salt Lake City and Its 
Founders. 

Tuthill, Franklin H., History of California. 

Von Hoist, H., The Constitutional and Political History of the 
United States. 8 vols. 

Wilson, Henry, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America. 
3 vols. 



•■•:?=> 



LBN 'lb 



